Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

  • 541 Replies
  • 130985 Views
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #480 on: October 23, 2012, 06:48:09 AM »
I'm not trying to grasp at straws.  I'm trying to understand your argument.  It seems like it all relies on the quote below.  Please further explain this.

Quote
At a distance of 55 km, on a spherical earth we would see a midpoint (highest point) curvature obstacle of some 59 meters, following an ascending slope, and a descending slope to be complete.

Why at a height of 240m and a distance of 55km should I see a 59 meter hill?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #481 on: October 23, 2012, 06:51:04 AM »
Grimsby - Toronto 53 km

Vinemount Ridge is some 2 km inland, but we will ascend to 240 meters.

For a distance of 55 km we have a curvature of 59 meters.

No such curvature can be seen in any of the photographs presented by me here; the surface of Lake Ontario is perfectly flat in each picture.


The curvature for a distance of 60 km, is over 60 meters. The photographs taken right on the beach (city of Hamilton) show no curvature whatsoever all the way to Lakeshore W. Blvd.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #482 on: October 23, 2012, 06:54:15 AM »
Why at a height of 240m and a distance of 55km should I see a 59 meter hill?

On a spherical Earth we must see the 59 meter hill/visual obstacle right in the middle, with an ascending slope leading to it, and a descending slope all the way to the other shoreline.



No ascending slope, no visual obstacle of 59 meters, no descending slope, no curvature whatsoever.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #483 on: October 23, 2012, 07:08:39 AM »
Another photograph from Beamer Falls C. Area:



http://vmulligan.deviantart.com/art/Toronto-from-Grimsby-208525934
(copyright vikram mulligan)

No ascending slope, no midpoint curvature whatsoever, no descending slope - a flat surface of lake Ontario.


Here is the original photograph in full view:

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/132/f/8/toronto_from_grimsby_by_vmulligan-d3g5fn2.jpg


The other photograph from Beamer Falls:

« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 07:11:11 AM by levee »

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #484 on: October 23, 2012, 07:12:46 AM »
What's the calculation to get a 59 meter hill in front of an observer at a height of 240m looking over a distance of 55km?

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #485 on: October 23, 2012, 08:21:39 AM »
What's the calculation to get a 59 meter hill in front of an observer at a height of 240m looking over a distance of 55km?
The problem is not with the the actual numbers. Everyone here more or less accepts that if you are 240 m above the lake you will pretty much see the shore on the other side unimpeded. The problem is a word game. Levee wants to see a hill, just like the one I am seeing right now by the side of my neighborhood. If you explain mathematics you will be asked to show something that looks like a mountain. If you show the shore on the other side you will be asked to show something that looks like a mountain. If you show that the shore can't be seen, it will be the same.

Words have no magical power. You do not say them in Latin to get snakes to appear, like in Harry Potter. You know that and I know that, but levee is another story.

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #486 on: October 23, 2012, 08:34:56 AM »
You're probably right in a sense, but he does mention the phrase 'visual obstacle' which to me sounds like he expects the hill to impede the view of buildings.  That can be mathematically disproven.


*

Lorddave

  • 15958
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #487 on: October 23, 2012, 09:40:45 AM »
I remember this discussion. Same pictures too.

What levee doesn't tell you is that there's a whole series of blocks and buildings along the edge you can't see. The buildings you can see are at a slightly higher elevation than the lake.

12.192 meters to be exact. That's how much higher the cn tower is to the lake.

So yeah, you can totally see it. Especially with atmospheric refraction helping out a bit.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #488 on: October 24, 2012, 02:50:11 AM »
But we can see everything in sight.

Especially in these photos:



No ascending slope, no midpoint maximum curvature of 59 meters...




Now, from the same spot as in the last photograph, Ms. Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn used a reflector telescope, at night, to capture this superb shot of the Toronto skyline:



http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto2.jpg (full image)


We can EVERYTHING IN SIGHT, no curvature whatsoever, no descending slope, JUST like in the photograph taken during daytime.


Let us now return to the Tunguska explosion.



Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle


Let us go over to Europe (the explosion took place at 7:15 - 7:20 local time, therefore it was 0:15- 0:20 am in London, at an elevation of 7 km):

The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

In Berlin, the New York Times of July 3rd reported unusual colors in the evening skies thought to be Northern Lights:

"Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens ... bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappears at dawn."

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

We are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Newspapers could be read at midnight in London, photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus; no other meteorological/astronomical phenomenon occurred at that time in the world, no such records exist.

That is why this is the very best proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.


Amazingly, even the original trajectory of the ball lightning which caused the explosion, was seen all the way from London:

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.


Here is a diagram of what this would look like.  The large circle represents a  cutaway of a spherical Earth.  I divided the Earth into 24 evenly spaced time zones.  Point A represents an event happening.  Point B represents an observer 7 time zones away.  The line extending along the horizon at point B represents the line of view of the person at that point.  He would never see the event happen.





And no comments from you on these photographs...






http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream

Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto...
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 02:52:12 AM by levee »

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #489 on: October 24, 2012, 06:52:09 AM »
Regarding the Tunguska event.  It's well believed that the lights eyewitnesses were referring to were left over ice crystals in the upper atmosphere from the path of the meteorite.

"Soviet experiments performed in the mid-1960s, with model forests (made of matches on wire stakes) and small explosive charges slid downward on wires, produced butterfly shaped blast patterns strikingly similar to the pattern found at the Tunguska site. The experiments suggested that the object had approached at an angle of roughly 30 degrees from the ground and 115 degrees from north and had exploded in mid-air."

Since claims where that the light was coming from the north and not from the east and that it lasted for a few days seems to validate this theory.  So your 2D diagram is far far from accurate.  I'd draw something up myself but I feel that even typing this response is a waste of time.


« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 06:53:56 AM by digimonkey »

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #490 on: October 24, 2012, 06:58:17 AM »
But we can see everything in sight.

After reading this incredible feat of logic (called a tautology) why should we bother reading the rest of this wall of blabber?

I think you want to talk about Tunguska (that is the most I can get from a 5 second browsing of your wall) and you can start yet another thread about it.

*

Lorddave

  • 15958
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #491 on: October 24, 2012, 06:59:05 AM »
Levee, I'm not sure what you think a round earth should look like with the "hill" thing. To those pics look correct. Can you show us pics or diagrams of what you mean by ascending slope or midpoint maximum?

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #492 on: October 24, 2012, 07:29:57 AM »
Regarding the Tunguska event.  It's well believed that the lights eyewitnesses were referring to were left over ice crystals in the upper atmosphere from the path of the meteorite.

"Soviet experiments performed in the mid-1960s, with model forests (made of matches on wire stakes) and small explosive charges slid downward on wires, produced butterfly shaped blast patterns strikingly similar to the pattern found at the Tunguska site. The experiments suggested that the object had approached at an angle of roughly 30 degrees from the ground and 115 degrees from north and had exploded in mid-air."

Since claims where that the light was coming from the north and not from the east and that it lasted for a few days seems to validate this theory.  So your 2D diagram is far far from accurate.  I'd draw something up myself but I feel that even typing this response is a waste of time.
It is easy to fall in the trap of discussing this kind of event that was poorly researched when it happened, where the impact zone was not even found for many years, and the Soviet government was not interested and also would not let international expeditions go and look for several decades more. To top that, we do not have other similar events that might have happened where better research would ensue.

We do not know whether the glow that was seen from outside Russia was the explosion, or before the explosion, or after it. The only thing we know for sure is that the whole incident is not worth mentioning until (and if ever) there is a good scientific study that explains to us the whole event, including the before, the during and the after. Giving conclusions, as levee is doing, from such a flimsy recolection of the event is downright useless. As you say, even typing this response is a waste of time.

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #493 on: October 24, 2012, 07:37:39 AM »
levee brings up the Tunguska event a lot, from his posts he seems to regard that as the trump card of his flat earth arguments (so when he's arguing pretty much anything - it's all connected to him - he'll first bring up the Toronto pictures then finally Tunguska). When I tried to find more information on the event what stood out to me was that eye witnesses in Europe described the glow in the sky over a period of days. So unless levee or anyone else is willing to accept that the explosion lasted days it's pretty obvious that the glow had to be due to more than just the explosion.

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #494 on: October 24, 2012, 07:55:17 AM »
@RealScientist I was simply pointing out that the base assumption Levee is running with is wrong.  I stated the current theory pertaining to the lights people seen in the north from Europe during the Tunguska event.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 08:00:57 AM by digimonkey »

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #495 on: October 24, 2012, 08:30:16 AM »
@RealScientist I was simply pointing out that the base assumption Levee is running with is wrong.  I stated the current theory pertaining to the lights people seen in the north from Europe during the Tunguska event.
As an hypothesis being researched, I am (marginally) interested in what is being said, including the idea of ice crystals. My point is that a huge amount of information is missing so this is the kind of event that can be exploited by levee and others. This is the kind of logical argument that goes "there are no good explanations so my pet theory is the correct one". In this case, Europe and Western Asia were not ready to make proper scientific research on the strange lights and noises and did a very poor job investigating, so the Earth is flat.

In general, as people interested in Science, I think we should discuss the quality of the information available, not as a comment on each other but as part of any review of scientific articles.

This is really not worth our time.

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #496 on: October 24, 2012, 11:21:50 AM »
Quote
In general, as people interested in Science, I think we should discuss the quality of the information available, not as a comment on each other but as part of any review of scientific articles.

This is really not worth our time.

I completely agree, and will not argue this topic with Levee especially since he uses eye witness accounts I've never heard of before.  However it should be at least argued that to reject an idea you need to accurately represent the idea you're rejecting.  Making up ideas you can reject is a bit bizarre.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #497 on: October 24, 2012, 04:11:38 PM »
It is easy to fall in the trap of discussing this kind of event that was poorly researched when it happened, where the impact zone was not even found for many years, and the Soviet government was not interested and also would not let international expeditions go and look for several decades more. To top that, we do not have other similar events that might have happened where better research would ensue.

None of this is relevant to the fact that the event was seen for over a quarter of the globe, yet was only 10 km over the Earth.  Do I need to make diagrams again?

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #498 on: October 24, 2012, 04:40:09 PM »
@RealScientist:  See what I mean?  They want to argue a point nobody is making invalid. 

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #499 on: October 24, 2012, 05:27:16 PM »
@RealScientist:  See what I mean?  They want to argue a point nobody is making invalid.
Yes, it is just like them to argue incessantly about an event that nobody knows what it was, or why it lasted for days, or what, exactly lasted for days either before of after the explosion.

It seems clear that some kind of explosion happened because the pattern of felled trees points to one, but we could write pages about the unknowns in this case. And yet, they have decided that "it" happened 10 km above the surface of the Earth. It is like the alien abductions. Nobody has a shred of evidence, there are a million inconsistencies in the stories, the witnesses who should have seen something never saw nothing, but "we know they were doing experiments with my sexual organs".

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #500 on: October 25, 2012, 12:31:11 AM »
The event at Tunguska COULD NOT have been caused by a meteorite, comet or asteroid:

In 1983, astronomer Zdenek Sekanina published a paper criticizing the comet hypothesis. He pointed out that a body composed of cometary material, travelling through the atmosphere along such a shallow trajectory, ought to have disintegrated, whereas the Tunguska body apparently remained intact into the lower atmosphere.

The chief difficulty in the asteroid hypothesis is that a stony object should have produced a large crater where it struck the ground, but no such crater has been found.

Fesenkov (1962) claims, "According to all evidence, this meteorite moved around the Sun in a retrograde direction, which is impossible for typical meteorites...." Fesenkov notes that meteorites rarely hit the earth in the morning, because the morning side faces forward in the planet's orbit. Usually the meteorite overtakes the earth from behind, on the evening side.


The most startling evidence concerns the path of the object:

T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.

LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).



Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



"It is clear that the Tungus cosmic body ... could not have been a comet," wrote the geophysicist A.V.
Zolotov, speaking for many of his fellow Soviet scientists. "Neither could it have been a normal ice,
stone, or iron meteorite. The Tungus body obviously represents a new yet unknown, much more
complicated phenomenon of nature than has been encountered up to this time."


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.



We are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.



The explosion was seen instantaneously across Europe, moreover the trajectory itself was also observed/seen from London:

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.


The fact that the glow persisted for days, IS DUE to influence of the telluric currents which were activated (received more energy) from Tesla's ball lightning.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

As to projecting wave-energy to any particular region of the globe, I have given a clear description of the means in technical publications. Not only can this be done by the means of my devices, but the spot at which the desired effect is to be produced can be calculated very closely, assuming the accepted terrestrial measurements to be correct.  My wireless plant will enable me to determine it within fifty feet or less, when it will be possible to rectify many geodetical data and make such calculations as those referred to with greater accuracy.

Nikola Tesla, 1907



Here is a diagram of what this would look like.  The large circle represents a  cutaway of a spherical Earth.  I divided the Earth into 24 evenly spaced time zones.  Point A represents an event happening.  Point B represents an observer 7 time zones away.  The line extending along the horizon at point B represents the line of view of the person at that point.  He would never see the event happen.



Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.


The most fantastic and extraordinary proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.

*

Lorddave

  • 15958
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #501 on: October 25, 2012, 03:15:38 AM »
What does that event have to do with gravity and light speed?

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #502 on: October 25, 2012, 04:28:14 AM »
The event at Tunguska COULD NOT have been caused by a meteorite, comet or asteroid:
You want to use the Tunguska Event to reach a definite conclusion, and you only know what it was not?

Please stop filling the thread with blabber that has nothing to do with the OP, and nobody is even reading anymore. If you start a thread for Tunguska you can see if anyone even cares.

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #503 on: October 25, 2012, 05:34:48 AM »
Yes if you really want to discuss this matter further make a new thread.  I won't be discussing it though because all modern evidence points to it being a comet or a chunk that fell off Comet Encke which was passing by at the time. 

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #504 on: October 25, 2012, 08:21:14 AM »
I like how Tesla's wireless transmission technology required very precise knowledge of the diameter of the round earth:

"As to projecting wave-energy to any particular region of the globe, I have given a clear description of the means in technical publications. Not only can this be done by the means of my devices, but the spot at which the desired effect is to be produced can be calculated very closely, assuming the accepted terrestrial measurements to be correct. This, of course, is not the case. Up to this day we do not know a diameter of the globe within one thousand feet. My wireless plant will enable me to determine it within fifty feet or less, when it will be possible to rectify many geodetical data and make such calculations as those referred to with greater accuracy."

So this event he caused, this most fantastic proof that the earth is flat, intimately relied on measurements that are only correct for a round earth... That "attack" which came from thousands of miles away and was allegedly too conveniently positioned and navigated to be a coincidence sure did a good job using calculations that would have been grossly incorrect for a flat earth.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40101
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #505 on: October 25, 2012, 09:54:30 AM »
Randomism, please provide links to the source of the quotes so that they can be properly verified and evaluated in context.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #506 on: October 25, 2012, 10:06:35 AM »
Randomism, please provide links to the source of the quotes so that they can be properly verified and evaluated in context.

levee provided the link himself, but here it is: http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #507 on: October 26, 2012, 12:08:08 AM »
The initial calculations FOR A SPHERICAL EARTH were indeed wrong...Tesla HAD TO MODIFY the trajectory of the ball lightning to reach the area of the explosion desired.

Read carefully.

LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.


We still do not understand how Tesla was able to realize the precise location of lake Baikal which he used as a reference point (perhaps the influence of the telluric currents over the lake itself was an indication on his readings of the movement of the ball lightning that a large quantity of water was present in the area, signaling the presence of lake Baikal).


What we know clearly is that the initial trajectory, based ON A SPHERICAL EARTH measurement, was WRONG, and Tesla had to modify the trajectory to reach the uninhabited area.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #508 on: October 26, 2012, 05:17:36 AM »
Here is a precise map so that we can follow the path of the ball lightning created by Tesla:




The initial path approached Kezhma from the south - this constituted, most probably, the spherical earth measurement thought initially to be correct - but Tesla realized (see my previous message) that something is definitely wrong in relation to the actual readings given by the true location of lake Baikal (telluric currents/ether influence on the trajectory of the ball lightning)

Therefore the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.



LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide.



*

Lorddave

  • 15958
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #509 on: October 26, 2012, 09:38:29 AM »
How does one navigate a ball of lightning without direct control and direct visual?

Was tesla in a plane with a remote control?  Because if he was, he wouldn't have needed any size information on the Earth.


Also:
What does this have to do with the topic?