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

  • 150 Replies
  • 65160 Views
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #120 on: February 17, 2008, 09:46:50 AM »
sokarul, I think it is time that our discussion on this subject (photographic evidence/flat earth debate) came to an end.
Yeah, becasue your OWN LINKS PROVE YOU WRONG.

Quote
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.
I bumped it to get it at the end of the off topic posts.  You cannot say at what heights the photos were taken at becasue you don't know.  I am a little more than 1/10000th of this forum as it seems before I came back, fe'ers like you were running wild.  I slowed you right down. 

Quote
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...
You forgot some things. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote
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.
This was already proven false. 

Quote
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...
Your opinions cannot disprove all of physics.   The heavy dome protects us?  Whats a sunburn then?  Humans have a pretty good idea how the sun works.  Its 2008 after all.   

Quote
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).
These sound like they were writen by the same author as 100 proofs earth is not a globe. 

Quote
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.
Because you are claims something that s not true.  Thats why it doesn't happen. 

Quote
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...
When are you going to research all the physics that does work?  You know like atoms and stuff.   


Quote
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)
So you believe what you agree with and ignore what you don't. 



Quote
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)...
Stop making up assumptions to prove your point.  Its like me saying that a flat earth would lead to ducks with 4 legs and since ducks have only 2 legs the earth is round. 

Quote
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.
See again making stupid claims.  When the earth was molten, there was no oxygen.  Oxygen came later, after water even. 

Quote
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.
I suggest you watch he show "The Universe"  They cover how the planets and sun formed. And of course they don't need to make up random assumptions.   
Quote
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.htm
Did you see the date of his sources?  Also that link no way proves the earth is flat.  A flat earth would still have to get salt into the oceans. 

Quote
Also, 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...
And then read all the criticism Velikovsky received for his books.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky  He didn't destroy anything. 

Quote
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.
Are you going to assume stuff and make an ass out of you and me again? 

Quote
Two of the very best sites on past planetary catastrophism:

http://www.pibburns.com/catastro/othercat.htm
http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari
Weak sites

Quote
The 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...).
Rowbotham had to make up his own physics becasue current physics didn't fit his ideas. 

Quote
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).
There is a lunar eclipse coming the 20th I think.  Should I keep a lookout for the shadow object?   

Quote
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).
lol











ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Michamus

  • 44
  • +0/-0
  • I guess I've been wrong. The Earth is round...
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #121 on: February 17, 2008, 10:53:23 AM »
Sok, I pretty much have come to the conclusion that the FE response to practical physics, and demonstrated proofs of a RE are simply replied with "Nuh uh, I found a site that says something different... therefor the earth cannot be round!" Or my favorite. "Wouldn't we feel the Earth spinning and moving through space?" I learned the answer to that one the first time I rode in a car.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #122 on: February 17, 2008, 10:56:11 AM »
SURVEY SAYS: SOKARUL IS A DUMBFUCK!!!
Both of you need to stop.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #123 on: February 17, 2008, 10:56:39 AM »
The result showed that the earth is absolutely stationary
In our frame of reference, yes. In the Earth's frame of reference, no.

?

Jim

  • 255
  • +0/-0
  • What year did Jesus think it was?
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #124 on: February 17, 2008, 01:52:46 PM »
"If we are on a rotating Earth with non-viscous air subject only to gravity.."

Who said air is non viscous?  If air wasn't viscous cars would be a whole lot more efficient.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7272
  • +7/-41
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #125 on: February 18, 2008, 10:48:39 AM »
TheEngineer, perhaps we need here a new section of this forum: a junior flat earth debate & discussion where infantiles like fhsy94 and sokarul can have a field day. If anyone there (under 18 years of age) proves worthy, then and only then could he/she post here, where we should have serious flat earth/round earth debates.

sokarul, please understand that you have lost your right to comment on anything relating to my messages or to anything concerning this site; you have shown yourself to be nothing but an ignorant, with a laughable and disastrous understanding of physics.

If the administrators will permit this ignorant to further post messages here, then that means that they truly do not care about the quality of the discussions which take place here.

Maybe a solution would be to enable each of us to moderate our own threads; to be able to remove/erase comments which are not pertinent to the discussions...

sokarul, how much more stupidity are we to endure from you? You do not know what you are saying, what you are commenting, you are showing yourself for what you truly are: an ignorant, you lack the basic knowledge to make intelligent comments; go back to the drawing board, study much more, do your homework, and only then you should come here and dare to say anything; and all this after you presented as evidence a practical joke, modified, photograph.

I. Velikovsky had five university degrees under his belt; was the roommate of A. Einstein at Princeton; after Einstein died a single book was found open on his desk, Worlds in Collision; which Einstein thought to be true; in 1972 Velikovsky destroyed Carl Sagan in a live debate, showing him all the errors of current astrophysics/cosmology knowledge.

If you do not know enough, study before you come here and post garbage. Read Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval, it will help you very much. Read the subject (I have already posted here enough links) of the heavenly dome, and how the sunrays/light/energy/radiation is allowed to pass through this dome, where these openings are, and how they work.

Obviously you haven't read my messages; it is false to claim the Earth is travelling with close to the speed of light through space; many of the FAQ facts are wrong, I have already addressed this issue here; the Earth is absolutely stationary, located in the center of the Universe; read, do your homework, get rid of your ignorance.

FOR THE ADMINISTRATORS: if this ignorant will be permitted to post further here I have no choice but to stop posting; he has nothing pertinent to say, and is wasting his time, my time, and everybody's time here; he should be banned from this section of the forum for incompetence. Or you could give us the message removal/erasure function to our own threads, so that I can get rid of garbage posted on my threads.

michemus, all your questions have been answered, please study those links, and the photographs which are absolutely real, and you will come to the unescapable conclusion: the earth is stationary and with a flat surface. If you still do not believe this, you have at your disposal the experiment you can do anytime, nobody's stopping you...you have a mediocre understanding of this debate, I try to give enough information so that you will see how easily you have been deceived by the official story...

gaystain, the only shit is inside your messages, which for the past several months or so, amount to very little...change your style...to get different results...

jim, it is sometimes said that lower atmosphere layers are sensible to viscous interaction, so a movement of the ground causes the movement of those lower layers with it, but it is not proven at all. Upper layers are not exposed in such a way to the ground interaction, the official theory goes. If the atmosphere were stationary there would be winds of 1000 miles/hr (1600 km/hr) on the ground/surface. Now, if the atmosphere is turning with the earth at the same speed, how then can the air/clouds move anywhere "gravity" permits?

Another quote for you:

Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.

In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case.

Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface.

Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field.

But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere.

Jim, please read all the other arguments I have posted here so far; and of course, read thoroughly the impossibility of the big bang/string theory article...

   







« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 11:09:45 AM by levee »

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #126 on: February 18, 2008, 10:54:43 AM »
tiny bit off topic, but I would love an ignore user function.
If you can't argue boith sides, yoo.u understanyd neither

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7272
  • +7/-41
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #127 on: February 18, 2008, 11:06:36 AM »
ignore user is not enough; and not needed if we could remove/erase unwanted comments on our own threads, that is, to moderate our own threads here.

also, the junior flat earth debate & discussion should be an option here; we should not have to stop and answer useless questions from juvenile users.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #128 on: February 18, 2008, 11:14:38 AM »
Or just an area where we could discuss things with veteran users.  Those with x amount of posts and y amount of time spent.  I suppose that wouldn't stop some of them though.
If you can't argue boith sides, yoo.u understanyd neither

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #129 on: February 18, 2008, 11:20:12 AM »
Or just an area where we could discuss things with veteran users.  Those with x amount of posts and y amount of time spent.  I suppose that wouldn't stop some of them though.

Then you'd all get to discuss with me

Levee seriously, no one likes you. You're not fooling anyone here, well at least not anyone with half a brain. So I do hope you will stop posting.
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

Jim

  • 255
  • +0/-0
  • What year did Jesus think it was?
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #130 on: February 18, 2008, 11:23:05 AM »
"Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong."


You just lost any credibility you may have once had.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #131 on: February 18, 2008, 11:27:08 AM »
SURVEY SAYS: SOKARUL IS A DUMBFUCK!!!

Probably the only thing you've said worth reading.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #132 on: February 18, 2008, 11:29:07 AM »
Look closely and carefully (remove your glasses). Then you will see that the distance Mercury-Sun, and ISS-Sun is the same (about the same), given that there is a dome between the Iss and Sun, while Mercury is on the other side, so to speak.

Same distance, same size; that's is why these Sun transits were so important, because once and for all we could see the real or true sizes and distances of Mercury relative to the Sun/Iss.

Open your eyes, remove your glasses and hold up a can about 3 inches away from your face. Now, look at a person about 10' away. What do you see.......THEY ARE THE SAME SIZE! Oh man, its so obvious isn't it? When you can clearly see these two objects being the same size....they are one in the same! All people are cans and all cans are people. Or at least they are the same size.....Its almost like I've just had a mystical experience. Something has just told me "Something just isn't right." I must investigate this immediately.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #133 on: February 18, 2008, 11:39:17 AM »
Or at least they are the same size.....Its almost like I've just had a mystical experience. Something has just told me "Something just isn't right." I must investigate this immediately.
Grow up.
If you can't argue boith sides, yoo.u understanyd neither

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7272
  • +7/-41
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #134 on: February 18, 2008, 11:54:22 AM »
Jim, the argument is about the gravitational charge alignment, no needed to go after the credibility issue, given that you tried to include here falsified evidence, the photograph (the practical joke you tried to pull on us) you posted here...

Read the material I posted on the gravitons/gravitational anomalies; Velikovsky's Cosmos Without Gravitation.

Of course, much more could be added re: air flow, relative motion, an equation to actually represent the charge alignment, there is also an extraordinary site with a fantastic debate between geocentrists and university physics graduates about the atmosphere flow argument, maybe I will include it here...

Benocrates, I appreciate your comment...here is the evidence:

Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg

The next two photographs show exactly the same distance from Venus/Mercury to the Sun, as in the photographs taken with ISS/Atlantis shuttle, and moreover, the same dimensions, of just 50-75 meters (50 meters Mercury, 75-100 meters Venus) in diameter; it was well known in the ancient world that the stars are very small (with the exception of Jupiter, Saturn, and Tiamat/Nibiru).


http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg

http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg

ISS/Atlantis Sun Transit:

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/images/shuttle-iss-sun.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609/iss_shuttle_legault_c88.jpg

and, of course: http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg

Mercury/Venus Sun Transit:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg

http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg


Compare especially:

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg

http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #135 on: February 18, 2008, 12:18:58 PM »
Or at least they are the same size.....Its almost like I've just had a mystical experience. Something has just told me "Something just isn't right." I must investigate this immediately.
Grow up.

lol, you got the reference then.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #136 on: February 18, 2008, 12:44:08 PM »
Or at least they are the same size.....Its almost like I've just had a mystical experience. Something has just told me "Something just isn't right." I must investigate this immediately.
Grow up.

lol, you got the reference then.

Yes, it was quite clever and sharp. 
If you can't argue boith sides, yoo.u understanyd neither

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #137 on: February 18, 2008, 01:05:19 PM »
TheEngineer, perhaps we need here a new section of this forum: a junior flat earth debate & discussion where infantiles like fhsy94 and sokarul can have a field day. If anyone there (under 18 years of age) proves worthy, then and only then could he/she post here, where we should have serious flat earth/round earth debates.
I''m 23. 

Quote
sokarul, please understand that you have lost your right to comment on anything relating to my messages or to anything concerning this site; you have shown yourself to be nothing but an ignorant, with a laughable and disastrous understanding of physics.
You are the one trying to use 2d pictures to tell distanaces. 

Quote
If the administrators will permit this ignorant to further post messages here, then that means that they truly do not care about the quality of the discussions which take place here.
You are scared of me becasue you cannot attack all of my attacks like I attack all of yours. 

Quote
Maybe a solution would be to enable each of us to moderate our own threads; to be able to remove/erase comments which are not pertinent to the discussions...
So you can be a coward and delete posts that own you?

Quote
sokarul, how much more stupidity are we to endure from you? You do not know what you are saying, what you are commenting, you are showing yourself for what you truly are: an ignorant, you lack the basic knowledge to make intelligent comments; go back to the drawing board, study much more, do your homework, and only then you should come here and dare to say anything; and all this after you presented as evidence a practical joke, modified, photograph.
I know exactly what you are saying.  You are saying you have no idea what the law of perspective is.  What I present is a joke yet all your mirages are sound?  Your own links prove you wrong. 

I
Quote
. Velikovsky had five university degrees under his belt; was the roommate of A. Einstein at Princeton; after Einstein died a single book was found open on his desk, Worlds in Collision; which Einstein thought to be true; in 1972 Velikovsky destroyed Carl Sagan in a live debate, showing him all the errors of current astrophysics/cosmology knowledge.
Stop making shit up.  Everyone and their mother know Velikovsky made stuff up.  Look it up, his works have been discredited long ago. 

Quote
If you do not know enough, study before you come here and post garbage. Read Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval, it will help you very much. Read the subject (I have already posted here enough links) of the heavenly dome, and how the sunrays/light/energy/radiation is allowed to pass through this dome, where these openings are, and how they work.
Why would I read something thats wrong?

Quote
Obviously you haven't read my messages; it is false to claim the Earth is travelling with close to the speed of light through space; many of the FAQ facts are wrong, I have already addressed this issue here; the Earth is absolutely stationary, located in the center of the Universe; read, do your homework, get rid of your ignorance.
To use acceleration to keep people on the ground makes the earths speed close to the speed of light.  What ever you are saying it really is would of came out of thin air. 

Quote
FOR THE ADMINISTRATORS: if this ignorant will be permitted to post further here I have no choice but to stop posting; he has nothing pertinent to say, and is wasting his time, my time, and everybody's time here; he should be banned from this section of the forum for incompetence. Or you could give us the message removal/erasure function to our own threads, so that I can get rid of garbage posted on my threads.
Good, I'm tired of going to random websites that anyone can create to read how you are wrong. 

Quote
michemus, all your questions have been answered, please study those links, and the photographs which are absolutely real, and you will come to the unescapable conclusion: the earth is stationary and with a flat surface. If you still do not believe this, you have at your disposal the experiment you can do anytime, nobody's stopping you...you have a mediocre understanding of this debate, I try to give enough information so that you will see how easily you have been deceived by the official story...
You have no rebuttals. 

Quote
gaystain, the only shit is inside your messages, which for the past several months or so, amount to very little...change your style...to get different results...
wow

Quote
jim, it is sometimes said that lower atmosphere layers are sensible to viscous interaction, so a movement of the ground causes the movement of those lower layers with it, but it is not proven at all. Upper layers are not exposed in such a way to the ground interaction, the official theory goes. If the atmosphere were stationary there would be winds of 1000 miles/hr (1600 km/hr) on the ground/surface. Now, if the atmosphere is turning with the earth at the same speed, how then can the air/clouds move anywhere "gravity" permits?
Its called physics.

Quote
Another quote for you:

Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.
Another narcberry claim.  The answer is GRAVITAION.  DO YOU UNDER STAND THAT?

Quote
In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case.
Gravitation can be seen, its not made up like your theories. 

Quote
Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface.
Once again its gravitation.  You have no evidence of a "dome".

Quote
Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field.
If your narcberry stupid this woruld happen.

Quote
But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere.
Yes because they don't use your reason.



   








[/quote]
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #138 on: February 18, 2008, 01:08:26 PM »
Jim, the argument is about the gravitational charge alignment, no needed to go after the credibility issue, given that you tried to include here falsified evidence, the photograph (the practical joke you tried to pull on us) you posted here...

Read the material I posted on the gravitons/gravitational anomalies; Velikovsky's Cosmos Without Gravitation.

Of course, much more could be added re: air flow, relative motion, an equation to actually represent the charge alignment, there is also an extraordinary site with a fantastic debate between geocentrists and university physics graduates about the atmosphere flow argument, maybe I will include it here...

Benocrates, I appreciate your comment...here is the evidence:

Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg

The next two photographs show exactly the same distance from Venus/Mercury to the Sun, as in the photographs taken with ISS/Atlantis shuttle, and moreover, the same dimensions, of just 50-75 meters (50 meters Mercury, 75-100 meters Venus) in diameter; it was well known in the ancient world that the stars are very small (with the exception of Jupiter, Saturn, and Tiamat/Nibiru).


http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg

http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg

ISS/Atlantis Sun Transit:

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/images/shuttle-iss-sun.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609/iss_shuttle_legault_c88.jpg

and, of course: http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg

Mercury/Venus Sun Transit:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg

http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg


Compare especially:

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg

http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
Perspective


ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Michamus

  • 44
  • +0/-0
  • I guess I've been wrong. The Earth is round...
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #139 on: February 18, 2008, 01:15:41 PM »
Benocrates, I appreciate your comment...here is the evidence:

Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg
Summed up quite easily - perspective.
Still waiting on a distance overview. You realize of course when looking at the sun you see a gradient around the edge of the sun. This same gradient is seen in Spheres. Why would this gradient exist on a circular sun?

The next two photographs show exactly the same distance from Venus/Mercury to the Sun, as in the photographs taken with ISS/Atlantis shuttle, and moreover, the same dimensions, of just 50-75 meters (50 meters Mercury, 75-100 meters Venus) in diameter; it was well known in the ancient world that the stars are very small (with the exception of Jupiter, Saturn, and Tiamat/Nibiru).


http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg

http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg
Hmmm... quite possibly perspective... once again? You do understand the further away an object is, the smaller it seems to everything else? The sun's (sol) diameter is 1.392 × 10^9m and is at a distance of 2.5 × 10^20m. Mercury is 69,816,900km from sol and 2,439.7 km in diameter. Follow these steps and you will find their dimensions will be quite similar to those "seen" from our surface from perspective

ISS/Atlantis Sun Transit:

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/images/shuttle-iss-sun.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609/iss_shuttle_legault_c88.jpg

and, of course: http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
Perspective.
Mercury/Venus Sun Transit:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg

http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
Perspective.

Compare especially:

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg

http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
And finally, perspective.

I notice you stated nuclear technology is a lie? I suppose nuclear reactors create power from some other means? What about microwave ovens? I suppose their principles are a lie as well.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #140 on: February 19, 2008, 02:29:33 AM »
Hello, I've been away for a week on holiday. (Got some lovely pictures too!) Does Levee still think you can measure size and distance from a photograph, or has he seen the light? If not, then we as far as he is concerned there is strong evidence that both the moon and sun constantly change size and distance. Plus there are giant astronauts in space.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #141 on: February 19, 2008, 02:31:20 AM »
He probably still thinks that but who cares about him? Lets talk about your holiday. Where did you go and what did you get me? Show pictures!
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #142 on: February 19, 2008, 02:48:24 AM »
I went to Gran Canaria, to a place on the south coast called San Augustin. I got you a lovely picture of the sinking ship effect, (which when I looked through binoculars looked exactly the same).
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #143 on: February 19, 2008, 03:02:21 AM »
Poor ship, the whales got it :(

I'm sure my postcard is just delayed in the post
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #144 on: February 19, 2008, 03:37:37 AM »
I don't have your address.
And you are right, the whales must be trained by the conspiracy! They must grab onto the bottoms of ships to make them sink.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7272
  • +7/-41
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #145 on: February 19, 2008, 06:58:59 AM »
As you have seen, the administrators/moderators have chosen not to respond to my request, and to let the ignorant (sokarul) to post further here.

Since their decisions are final and cannot be commented or discussed, I will leave this forum; if, at least, we had been given the removal of messages feature on our own threads, everything would have been different; as such, I cannot erase the spam posted by the sorry excuse for a scientist (sokarul), namely the unsubstantiated verbal vomit he has offered here.

At the end of this message, my last here, I will offer the best photograph so far, which proves (Conspiracy Agent, congratulations for your previous messages, but the sinking ship effect has already been explained in great details by Rowbotham, if you remember) beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no curvature, none whatsoever, between Cap Gris Nez and White Cliffs Dover.

michemus, you do not understand how and when to apply the laws of perspective; look carefully at the photographs with the Sun transits, there are no 79,000,000 km between Atlantis and Mercury, there are no 148,000,000 km between Atlantis and the Sun, there are no 69,000,000 km between Mercury and the Sun.

These photographs show clearly the truth that Nasa does not want us to know; that the Sun is but a mere 28-30 km above us, and that Mercury is a metal disk with a diameter of about 50 meters. You can comment all you want on perspective, it does not apply here, understand. The photographs show clearly about the same distance ISS-Sun, Mercury-Sun, that is why these transits were so important in the first place, because for the first time we could catch the errors and fallacies of modern astronomy with the best possible photographic evidence.

Divito and michemus, you have at your disposal the experiment I already mentioned, you can use either a 9.6 km (1.8 meters curvature) or a 6.4 km (80 cm curvature, you sit in the boat or on the beach next to the sea/ocean) distance to convince yourselves once and for all that the Earth is flat and not round.


I thought that the moderators of this site would have been happy for someone to come here and, after 85 pages of debates, to finally prove to you, using many different photographs/arguments, that the Earth is flat.

But, they prefer an ignorant like sokarul to stay here further and post spam messages which are totally laughable.

Again, if they decide to give us the means to remove unwanted/spam messages, maybe I will come back one day...until then, farewell!!!



Let us now do a recap of the best photographs so far, which show us that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth; and, as I promised, I will post here, at the end, the most fantastic proof yet (a surprise).

http://www.expedition360.com/journal/archives/2007/09/

http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg

The extraordinary photograph, taken from the beach of Cap Gris Nez, which shows that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth, between White Cliffs Dover and France (distance of 34 km, with a curvature of 22.6 meters).

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:France_manche_vue_dover.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG

Again, no curvature over the English Channel, between White Cliffs Dover and France, at 22.6 meters, it would have been observable/visible immediately.


http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/10/by_train_from_europe_to_africa_1.html
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/straits_gibraltar.jpg

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/y/s/000e97gt_ys8osx2q.jpg

No curvature of the strait of Gibraltar (13 km distance, 3.3 meters curvature in case of a round earth).

A video documentary, Islamic History of Europe, which shows between 2:53 and 3:55, the author filmed on the beach (Spain), from shoulder level, and with clear images of the opposite shoreline (Morocco):




Over a distance of 53 km (with a curvature of 50 meters, that is a 20 story high building obstacle right in the middle, in case of a round earth scenario), there is absolutely no curvature over the Lake Ontario all the way to Toronto:

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoNight.jpg

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG

[Here is the site where you will find out that "On a clear day you can see right across from the Dover cliffs to the cliffs on the French coast at Cap Gris Nez" - http://www.dover.gov.uk/museum/resource/articles/cliffs.asp ]


AND NOW, FOR THE MOST SUPERB PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM THE BEACH OF CAP GRIS NEZ, FRANCE, AND SHOWING ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE OVER THE ENGLISH CHANNEL (34 KM DISTANCE, WITH A 22.6 METER ROUND EARTH CURVATURE), ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITE CLIFFS, DOVER.

Here are the photographers on the beach of Cap Gris Nez:

http://flickr.com/photos/wstreet/1909270063/in/photostream/

HERE IS THE PHOTOGRAPH, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER, not even an inch, a centimeter or a micron, over the English Channel, between Cap Gris Nez and White Cliffs Dover:

http://flickr.com/photos/wstreet/1910078752/


Much great success to all of you here!!!...







*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7272
  • +7/-41
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #146 on: February 27, 2008, 11:02:45 AM »
To clarify some points that have been discussed lately (username, very useful and excellent messages at Why is the Earth Special):

1. Satellite Conspiracy

All satellites (geostationary/orbital) use Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device to function:

WHAT IS NOT SAID ABOUT THE SATELLITES

A TESLA FREE RADIANT ENERGY TYPE IS SO SMALL THAT CAN BE CAMOUFLAGED EASILY

Brooklyn Eagle July 10, 1932 Nikola Tesla states:

I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor. I have hopes of building my motor on a large scale, but circumstances have not been favorable to carrying out my plan.

A satellite is a complex machine. All satellites are made up of several subsystems that work together as one large system to help the satellite achieve its mission. This simplified illustration shows the key parts of a remote-sensing satellite. The main subsystems are grouped by color.

http://www.smgaels.org/physics/97/MARIN32.GIF
http://www.nuenergy.org/images/gif/img00001.gif
http://www.thetech.org/hyper/satellite/images/anatomy.gif

With such a permanent supply of high quality energy, certainly the satellites are remote controlled from earth to make them go around or stay hovering in a specific place. They don't stay quite or moving because of any gravity - which is a lie- but because of the energy taken from those layers.

Two exceptional discussions about the satellites:

http://www.geocentricperspective.com/geosat.pdf

http://www.fixedearth.com/geosynchronous_sa.htm

2. Commercial/military flights

Straight line flying (with the exception of take-off/landing):

http://www.geistware.com/rcmodeling/aerobatics/maneuvers/straight_and_inverted_flight.htm

As stated, an observer on the ground would see the air going almost straight down behind the plane. This can be demonstrated by observing the tight column of air behind a propeller, a household fan, or under the rotors of a helicopter; all of which are rotating wings. If the air were coming off the blades at an angle the air would produce a cone rather than a tight column. If a plane were to fly over a very large scale, the scale would register the weight of the plane.

When I am being proper and responsible, I am flying high, maybe even 3000 feet above the ground. From that height, on good days I can see almost forever around me, but the details of the ground below have started to blend together and flatten. The view becomes more oriented to the sky than the ground as I fly a straight line to my destination.

http://bobtilden.com/11E01.htm

Commercial aircraft prefer to fly “straight and level” because it is convenient. Air traffic controllers have to keep aircraft from flying into each other, and having pilots fly airplanes in straight lines makes a controller’s job possible. Also, people tend to get airsick when an airplane moves erratically, so straight and level flight makes things more comfortable for the passengers and crew.


Between 1957-1961, about seven Soviet astronauts died (being literally cooked alive) because of the huge radiation found at just 28 km above (below the Heavenly Dome).

Herbert Friedman, in his book Sun and Earth, describes Van Allen's global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I, launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder (the maximum height achieved was kept secret). Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief: 'All space must be radioactive!'."

That is why the ISS/Atlantis fly with no astronauts aboard; the Cosmic Ray Device of Tesla is protected against the radiation.

All missions ran into a belt of resistance (the ether below the Dome) which slowed them down or forced them to fly lower; the first Soviet missions tried to go through, but all the astronauts died aboard from the radiation.


3. The Flat Earth Map

Columbus, Magellan, Cabot and Vespucci had at their disposal the best flat earth maps which took them to their desired destination; Piri Reis, the famed admiral of the Ottoman fleet, had the same maps and published them in Bahriya, here is his flat earth map of the world (it does not include the ring of ice Antarctica and beyond):

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/e/000e97gt_pem6hbvo.gif

Then we start understanding that the map that we have used from the elementary school (  http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_maps/world_rel_803005AI_2003.jpg ) is not an equidistant representation of the distances among the different parts of the earth, but it is a powerful tool to deceive us miserably making us to believe in a distorted reality.

The person chosen to transform the flat earth map into the round earth version was none other than one of the most famous rosicrucians of all: Gerald Kremer, also known as Mercator.

Columbus knew exactly were he was going, and used the flat earth maps to get there.

Here is a wonderful proof that the earth is flat, from Columbus' journal:

COLUMBUS AND THE FLAT SURFACE OF THE OCEAN


Columbus received the reward offered by the king for being the first one to see a human signal coming from some unseen land. Let's read his own words:


Thursday, 11 October. Steered west-southwest; and encountered a heavier sea than they had met with before in the whole voyage. Saw pardelas and a green rush near the vessel. The crew of the Pinta saw a cane and a log; they also picked up a stick which appeared to have been carved with an iron tool, a piece of cane, a plant which grows on land, and a board. The crew of the Nina saw other signs of land, and a stalk loaded with rose berries. These signs encouraged them, and they all grew cheerful. Sailed this day till sunset, twenty-seven leagues.


After sunset steered their original course west and sailed twelve miles an hour till two hours after midnight, going ninety miles, which are twenty-two leagues and a half; and as the Pinta was the swiftest sailer, and kept ahead of the Admiral, she discovered land and made the signals which had been ordered. The land was first seen by a sailor called Rodrigo de Triana, although the Admiral at ten o'clock that evening standing on the quarter-deck saw a light, but so small a body that he could not affirm it to be land; calling to Pero Gutierrez, groom of the King's wardrobe, he told him he saw a light, and bid him look that way, which he did and saw it; he did the same to Rodrigo Sanchez of Segovia, whom the King and Queen had sent with the squadron as comptroller, but he was unable to see it from his situation. The Admiral again perceived it once or twice, appearing like the light of a wax candle moving up and down, which some thought an indication of land. But the Admiral held it for certain that land was near; for which reason, after they had said the Salve which the seamen are accustomed to repeat and chant after their fashion, the Admiral directed them to keep a strict watch upon the forecastle and look out diligently for land, and to him who should first discover it he promised a silken jacket, besides the reward which the King and Queen had offered, which was an annuity of ten thousand maravedis. At two o'clock in the morning the land was discovered, at two leagues' distance; they took in sail and remained under the square-sail lying to till day, which was Friday, when they found themselves near a small island, one of the Lucayos, called in the Indian language Guanahani. ...Saturday, 13 October. This is a large and level island, with trees extremely flourishing, and streams of water; there is a large lake in the middle of the island, but no mountains: the whole is completely covered with verdure and delightful to behold


The math is simple: 22˝ leagues = 90 miles. From 10 to 2 hours after midnight there are 4 hours x 12 miles per hour = 48 miles. The land still was 2 leagues away, which is 8 miles, added to 48 gives 56 miles or above 90 kilometers. By his own words, there was not mountain. The ship could be some 3 meters above the water.


If the water of the ocean was curved, the island would be more than 600 meters below the line of sight of Columbus. Therefore neither he nor the others could see any light from that far a distance. Columbus and all those experts in high sea navigation knew these realities common among mariners: the water surface of the ocean is flat (except for the waves).







« Last Edit: February 28, 2008, 10:03:29 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7272
  • +7/-41
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #147 on: February 28, 2008, 10:42:52 AM »
Re: aether.

Pages 2, 3, and 4 here, provide abundant and sufficient proofs for the existence of the aether.

Here is another proof: G. B. Airy's experiment (1871):

"Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

See also: http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/page17.htm



*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7272
  • +7/-41
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #148 on: February 28, 2008, 11:55:14 AM »
"Light moves more slowly in a material medium than in the vacuum,
the velocity being inversely proportional to the refractive index
of the medium. The phenomenon of refraction is in fact caused by a
slewing of the wave-front in passing into a region of smaller velocity.” (from Eddington)

Any correct Earth – Sun (or, for that matter, Earth – Moon) distance measurement/calculation must take into account the non-homogeneous filling of space with a medium, namely the aether, which takes up a layer of about 3-5 kilometers underneath the Heavenly Dome, and fills up completely the space above the Dome. Also, the aether-like material which makes up the Dome, must be taken into account, and of course, the nature of the plasma layer which covers the solid surface of the sun (in the shape of a disk).

From Einstein:

"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 (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”

From Hubble:

" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature…”

Nernst's Interpretation

Hubble made two mistakes:

The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.

The second lay in the hypothesis that his "law" was "clearly linear", thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good "first approximation" of a logarithmic curve.
The Doppler effect, star aberration, and even the  change of wavelength due to the Compton effect, can be explained by taking into consideration the aether field the existence of which was confirmed by many experiments made by Nikola Tesla (see also the Airy experiment).

The aether, by definition, is the light-carrying medium.

(see the Doppler effect alternative explanation links I provided earlier...)

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7272
  • +7/-41
Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun
« Reply #149 on: February 29, 2008, 11:23:13 AM »
Simultaneous solar and lunar eclipses in history:

Plinius Secundus in the Chapter XIII, Of Eclipses, in his SECOND BOOKE OF THE HISTORIE OF NATVRE:

Also that the Sunne and Moone twice in thirtie daies were darkened above the earth: howbeit seene this was not equally in all quarters, but of divers men in divers places: and that which maketh mee to marvell most of all in this wonder, is this, that when agreed it is by all, that the Moone light is dimmed by the shaddow of the earth, one while this eclipse happeneth in the West, and another while in the East: as also, by what reason it happened, that seeing after the Sunne is up, that shaddow which dusketh the light of the Moone, must needs be under the earth: it fell out once, that the Moone was eclipsed in the West, and both planets to be seen above the ground in our horison. For that in twelve daies both these lights were missing, and neither Sun nor Moone were seene: it chaunced in our time, when both the Vespasians (Emperors) were Consuls, the father the third time, and the son the second.

The Report of Pilate to Caesar

And him Herod and Archelaus and Philip, Annas and Caiaphas, with all the people, delivered to me, making a great uproar against me that I should try him. I therefore ordered him to be crucified, having first scourged him, and having found against him no cause of evil accusations or deeds.

And at the time he was crucified there was darkness over all the world, the sun being darkened at mid-day, and the stars appearing, but in them there appeared no lustre; and the moon, as if turned into blood, failed in her light. And the world was swallowed up by the lower regions, so that the very sanctuary of the temple, as they call it, could not be seen by the Jews in their fall; and they saw below them a chasm of the earth, with the roar of the thunders that fell upon it. (1) And in that terror dead men were seen that had risen, as the Jews themselves testified; and they said that it was Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs, and Moses and Job, that had died, as they say, three thousand five hundred years before. And there were very many whom I also saw appearing in the body; and they were making a lamentation about the Jews, on account of the wickedness that bad come to pass through them, and the destruction of the Jews and of their law.

From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:

This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.

Mahabharata:

. . in course of the same month both the Moon and the Sun have undergone eclipses on the thirteenth days from the day of the first lunation. The Sun and the Moon therefore, by undergoing eclipses on unusual days, will cause a great slaughter of the creatures of the earth.

Plinius Secundus does not realize that given the simultaneous nature of the solar/lunar eclipses, the Earth could not be the cause of the lunar eclipse (see also the chapter in Rowbotham's book).


The Sun Transit photographs show clearly that the diameter of the Sun is about 5 km and not the 32 miles (50 km) offered by the FES.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2008, 11:35:11 AM by levee »