About light speed and ether

Don't mess with Levee, he'll mess you up.

With what?  The book he's writing in posts?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 30, 2010, 07:06:50 PM

Don't mess with Levee, he'll mess you up.

With what?  The book he's writing in posts?

More like ctrl v. 

eire...your discourse would make sense in front of an audience of primary school kids in need of such a thing. I studied fluid dynamics, in the context of nonlinear dynamical systems and chaos MUCH MORE than you have; you are trying to give the impression that you know something, but it doesn't work with me at all.

You have never studied, in your entire life, prior to our debate here, the real cause of gravity or the facts behind the space-time continuum.

Let me address your childish arguments, and set things straight.

You failed to mention the ozone-oxygen cycle, if that is what you were referring to. You wrote:

Its "shelf life" is very short, and the only way for it to exist in any

measurable quantity is for it to be constantly produced.

BUT IN FACT, eire, the atomic oxygen IMMEDIATELY REACTS WITH other oxygen molecules, to form ozone again.

And that is the CRUX OF THE MATTER, which you FAILED to address (as usual).

You haven't STUDIED AT ALL this subject, have you eire? How dare you come here and try to debate with me, without getting your facts straight?

The overall effect of the ozone-oxygen cycle is to convert penetrating UV radiation into heat, WITHOUT ANY NET LOSS OF OZONE.

WHERE DID YOU STUDY PHYSICS EIREENGINEER? What the hell did you say? Ozone (O1) has half the weight of a
molecule of atmospheric oxygen (O2). We are talking here about TRIOXYGEN (O3), THAT IS, OZONE.

Thus, the ozone layer is kept in a stable balance. And, moreover, in the stratosphere, the ozone layer concentrations are about 2 to 8 parts per million, which is much higher than in the lower atmosphere

Now, we get back to what I told you before.

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the mixing effect of the wind. The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights. Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.

YOU, EIREENGINEER, DID NOT ADDRESS AT ALL THIS PRINCIPAL ISSUE: this is exactly what we are discussing here, not the ozone-oxygen cycle.

You have no answers to this undeniable fact: ozone is constatly produced, and does not obey any attractive gravity law.


You are telling me about buoyancy? You must be joking, of course. What you want eire, is an attractive kind of gravity, but without attractional properties, it doesn't work like that at all.

Your analogy between the gas inside a hot-air balloon and the concentration of gases in the atmosphere is completely wrong, the atmosphere IS NOT behaving like a closed-system, a hot-air balloon in your description.

My friend: I am trying to see if you actually understand what we are talking about here. IF THERE IS ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THEN GASES MUST SEPARATE INTO LAYERS, ACCORDING TO THEIR SPECIFIC WEIGHTS.

YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE AT ALL; YOU WANT OR NOT TO HAVE AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY AS AN EXPLANATION? If the answer is yes, then, please read the following:

Then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that pockets of noxious gas are in the air, the scientists replied:

There are no pockets of noxious gas. No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

Again, eire, I am getting tired to bring you back to reality, to what are talking about here. Do you understand where you are, what we are discussing? You DID NOT ADDRESS AT ALL the fact that, given the attractive gravity law you believe in, gases SHOULD SEPARATE ACCORDING TO THEIR SPECIFIC WEIGHTS.


Of course barometric pressure has to do with pressure and heat, this is EXACTLY the point I made earlier, and which you dodged quite nicely. You do not know ANYTHING ABOUT ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, it is way out of your league.

You wrote:

The uneven heating of the earth (which you would have to contend with on a

flat earth as well) is what for the most part accounts for the variations.  Where air is

warm it will expand and be less dense, cold it will contract and be more dense. Using

experiments from the 1600s to try to prove your notion is really probably not the way to

make your argument.

eire, you DID NOT ADDRESS the issues I raised, exactly concerning the heat and the pressure: PLEASE READ AGAIN.

BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX:

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal's discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth's surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.


THE SAME PARADOX IS AT WORK EVEN TODAY, EIRE; scientists do not know the cause of these variations.

PLEASE READ.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation.


SO FAR, EIRE, your attractive gravity is but a pipe dream. You HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY OF THE ISSUES INVOLVING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

You have the nerve to come here and talk about cloud formation?

You do not understand even the definition of a cloud: here it is for you.

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

IT IS RIGHT AT THIS POINT, WHERE WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE YOU DODGED: Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here.

In order to explain this on a round earth, with attractive gravity, WE SHOULD HAVE AN UPWARD MOTION PRODUCED BY A CONSTANT STREAM OF WIND, RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE CLOUD. Let us take a look at the weight of some clouds.

Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.

You also wrote, in defiance of the actual physics involved:

Onto the gravity of a mountain experiment, which was horribly flawed in concept.  Trying to

use a plumb bob when the earths gravity is going to overwhelm any signal from the mountain

which is 1/1000th its size is ridiculous.

THE EXPERIMENTS INVOLVED IN MEASURING THE GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE OF THE HIMALAYA RANGE WERE VERY CAREFULLY PERFORMED, and the anomalies which resulted quickly were explained by resorting to the isostasy theory, which is completely false, as we have seen.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.

On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high.


YOU ALSO WROTE, NOT ADDRESSING THE ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY ISSUE WHICH IS THE CENTRAL POINT:

The sun does not really have an atmosphere per se, nor does it have a surface, , so you were

comparing apples and oranges.  However, the pressure of the gas in the photosphere is

indeed very low, but the reason why is obvious. Contrary to your assertion, the gravity

acting on any particular atom of gas is quite large, because gravity is cumulative, and the

distance is rather small. In addition, there is a tremendous amount of heat and energy, and

that tends to reduce the density and the pressure.


NO, EIRE, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, your words denote very clearly the difficult situation you are in, where you cannot explain the facts I present in front of your very eyes. It is not the temperature (which could not account for the differences) that was brought into question by scientists, but the pressure of light argument.

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?

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. 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.

GIVEN THE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE OF ROTATION, THE SUN COULD NOT HAVE A SPHERICAL SHAPE, GIVEN THE EXISTENCE OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY (THE CONCEPT YOU BELIEVE IN) AND VERY LOW ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE. THIS IS THE POINT WE DISCUSS HERE, AND WHICH LEFT YOU WORDLESS.

As for the surface of the sun, please think again:


http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/index.html

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sunquakes.htm

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/moss.htm



solid core + plasma cloud, based only on official photographs given by Nasa:
www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf

about the fact that O. Manuel's article includes the wrong hypotheses, (imploding supernova), on:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060124solar3.htm

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/5th_state_of_matter.html (more info)


Astronomical myths of Mercury and the Sun:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=e511t4z2


eire, please go to your nearest public library, and do some serious studying; here YOU HAVE NO CHANCE WITH ME, not one in a billion.

I have demonstrated to you that there is no such thing as attractive gravity.

eire, you FAILED TO ADDRESS THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM QUESTION.

HAVE YOU EVER STUDIED THE ORIGINS OF THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT?

It was H. Minkowsky who SIMLPLY REPLACED THE X4 VARIABLE IN G.F. RIEMANN'S MULTIDIMENSIONAL SPACE (CREATED FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE ALTOGETHER) WITH T (TIME). SPACE AND TIME ARE ABSTRACT COORDINATE SYSTEMS, OR REFERENCE SYSTEMS, you cannot put space and time together to form any kind of a continuum.

eireengineer, what are we going to do with you? How can you mention mindlessly space-time, without having an understanding of what is going on?

There is no such thing as a space-time continuum.

Nikola Tesla on the space-time continuum invented by Minkowski:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'

During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.

Speaking to his friends, Tesla often refuted some of Einstein's statements, especially those which were related with curvature of space. He considered that it breaks the law of action and opposite reaction: If curvature of space is formed due to strong gravitational fields, then it should become straight due to opposite reaction.


eire, please do your homework, this will solve all of your problems.

G.F. Riemann introduced (1854 - http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html ) the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann's original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an amorphous continuum. Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...

'If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then relativity is wrong' (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 106).

If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false.' {Quotation of A. Einstein from a letter to Erwin Finley-Freundlich: August 1913}


I have just demonstrated to you that there is no such thing as a space-time continuum.


bowler, you dropped you usual nice manners to write this piece of shit:

You are insane. The reason I say that is because to argue logically against insanity is itself insane. Its pretty clear to anyone who really knows what all those sciency sounding words means that its nothing but a collection of fancy sound words strung together in, as far as I can tell, no discernable order. If you don't know what they mean then it doesn't really matter if they're in a discernable order.

So far, in every direct debate with me, you have failed miserably to even attempt to rationally defend current quantum mechanics, astrophysics theories. Please do your homework before you DARE to enter into a debate with me.


lorddave wrote:

If there is a solid substance pushing on us, it would be even pressure meaning the upper atmosphere should be just as dense as the lower atmosphere.  It's not.

Did I ever mention a SOLID SUBSTANCE PUSHING ON US? No. Please read carefully what I posted much earlier. We are constantly showered with subquarks (tachyons), which Tesla called cosmic rays; these tachyons are the cause of the pushing type of gravity. And its pressure is not even at all, please read the subject of gravitational anomalies I presented earlier.

sokarul, you are the inspector Clouseau of this site.

You haven't read at all the Tunguksa explosion subject, have you?

You wrote:

They think it was from a metor hitting the atmoshpere, 5-10 km above ground.  Don't make the claim the explosion was on the ground and people saw it.

I mentioned from the very start these facts:

The explosion at Tunguska (June 30, 1908, 7:15-7:20 am) took place at an elevation of 7 km. It was seen all the way from Irkutsk and Lake Baikal.

I calculated, using a mere 6000 km between London and Tunguska, the visual obstacle: 4333 KM

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THESE NUMBERS SUCKERUL?

Here are the actual newspaper accounts from the period July 1 - 4, 1908:

The explosion at Tunguska, on a round earth, should have been a local affair, restricted to an area of some 200 km x 200 km, nothing could be seen at 600 km, or at 6000 km (London).

Newspaper accounts from London:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm
http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

Now you must remember that the trajectory of the fireball which caused the explosion itself was observed for SOME 10 MINUTES (7:05 - 7:10) PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION, HERE IS THE EXTRAORDINARY DESCRIPTION:

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.

Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).

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 60degrees55' N, 101degrees57' E (LeMaire 1980).

THE TRAJECTORY ITSELF, PRIOR TO 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. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.

More accounts:

A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house. A meteorological observer in England recounted on the nights of June 30th and July 1st:
A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast... causing an undue prolongation of twilight lasting to daybreak on July 1st...There was a complete absence of scintillation or flickering, and no tendency for the formation of streamers, or a luminous arch, characteristic of auroral phenomena... Twilight on both of these night was prolonged to daybreak, and there was no real darkness.
The report that most closely ties these strange cosmic happenings with Tesla's power transmission scheme is that while the sky was aglow with this eerie light it was possible to clearly see ships at sea for miles in the middle of the night.

To the Editor of the Times.
Sir,--Struck with the unusual brightness of the heavens, the band of golfers staying here strolled towards the links at 11 o'clock last evening in order that they might obtain an uninterrupted view of the phenomenon. Looking northwards across the sea they found that the sky had the appearance of a dying sunset of exquisite beauty. This not only lasted but actually grew both in extent and intensity till 2:30 this morning, when driving clouds from the East obliterated the gorgeous colouring. I myself was aroused from sleep at 1:15, and so strong was the light at this hour that I could read a book by it in my chamber quite comfortably. At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink, and the birds began their matutinal song. No doubt others will have noticed this phenomenon, but as Brancaster holds an almost unique position in facing north to the sea, we who are staying here had the best possible view of it.
Yours faithfully,
Holcombe Ingleby.
Dormy House Club, Brancaster, July 1 (1908 )

Some people saw massive, silvery clouds and brilliant, colored sunsets on the horizon, whereas others witnessed luminescent skies at night. Londoners, for instance, could plainly read newsprint at midnight without artificial lights.

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.

THIS WOULD BE POSSIBLE ONLY ON A FLAT EARTH, GIVEN THE 4333 KM VISUAL OBSTACLE PRESENT on a round earth.


I have just demonstrated to you the very best proof that there is no curvature between London and Tunguska.

NO BROKEN RECORD HERE AT ALL: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg985060#msg985060

JUST A PERFECT DEMONSTRATION THAT OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, AND OVER THE LAKE MICHIGAN THERE IS NO POSSIBLE CURVATURE, your childhish efforts amounted to nothing at all.


Why do I have to put up with this kind of messages?

I have done the experiment myself as many others have.  It fails every time. No aether. I don't know what you are trying to get at. People to this day are experimenting for general relativity. You can travel up 123 years any day now.   
Principia is outdated.  Some things no longer apply.  Kind of like the Bohr atom model. 

sokarul, you haven't done anything. Here is the real deal about the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31008#p31008
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31007#p31007

Please read further:


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

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

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


You wrote:

You mean the pictures I which I showed are correct for the round earth model.  How the city sits before the horizon.  You cannot and did not make a comeback for this.  Now post where the Lake Michigan stories come from. A website containing stories about mirages.

Are we to understand sokarul that you also have psychiatric problems in addition to the other ones?

The website about the Lake Michigan story IS ACTUALLY A NEWSPAPER FROM HOLLAND, NO MIRAGE AT ALL.

Here is the story again for you.

Let us go back to the Lake Michigan story; here are the main points:

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg979424#msg979424

YOU COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING FROM A 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM LAKESHORE DRIVE LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE ITSELF.

NO LOOMING, OR ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION CAN HELP THE ROUND EARTH SUPPORTERS.

I EXPLAINED ALREADY WHY THE VIEW FROM MILWAUKEE/RACINE WAS SEEN SO SELDOM. The air and ether themselves have varying densities at the surface of the lake; when that density is just right, the view of the tallest buildings in Milwaukee and also Racine can be seen easily; the residents of Holland are not staring all of the time across the lake, it is a hobby, sometimes they can see that view, which WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE ON A ROUND EARTH.

I am looking forward to the day when levee actually posts a reference from at least the twentieth century, instead of tendentiously cherry picking out of date science.

Im known for my insanity so here goes. I will base my use special relativity to explain a number of everyday results to which i am unaware of another plausible explanation. I'm not going to derive the equations of special relativity it is an assumption of SR that the aether doesn't exist. I do not see how current results from large Perot interferometers can accommodate the classical aether theory. The quantum theory of fields, not SR, is, I would say the final nail in the classical aether coffin. So lets explore some of the results of special relativity and see where we end up. I should say at this point that there are modern aether theories, I quite like one where all particles are waves in the aether, I don't believe it but it is quite a cute theory.

The colour of gold. Anyone who has seen a variety of metals will know that they tend to be silver, or some variation on grey. There are some notable exceptions. Im sure most people will be aware that the colour of a metal is governed by the outer electron shells around the nucleus. In general classical physics with the Bohr model of the atom can approximately explain the reflection spectra of metals. One exception to this is gold, it should be white, whiter than silver, except it isn't. If we assume that special relativity is correct then we have a relativistic mass
m = m₀sqrt(1-(v/c)²).

If we substitute this increase in mass into the term for the Bohr radius of the atom, we see that special relativity predicts a contraction of the atomic radius. Outer electrons are dominated by another effect as they have a greater angular momentum but a lower velocity as they are further from the nucleus. As a result they do not contract and end up further form the inner electrons. As both these effects are greater for Gold  as it is larger than silver the difference causes a difference in reflection spectra. If there was a aether, gold would be white.

This is a simple one which im sure is well known enough for someone to have cooked up an answer using some words from a sciency dictionary (something along the lines of the energy density metric of the muons wavefunction is such that it seems to decay quicker, see I can stick a pin in dictionary as well).  The decay of particles such as muons and pions seems to be a trivial proof of special relativity. Well ok not quite proof but about as good as an experiment is likely to provide.

The dirac equation. This is a good one a nice combination of fairly elementary QM and SR yielding a very powerful result. Ill do the proof later but now its quiz time. Ill skip straight to the bit where you combine SR and QM and get the most predictive equation ever. I've tried to avoid mocking the conspiracy with the coupling between gravitation and electromagnetism, because all though theres no conclusive science, or to be honest any plausible theories, theres enough odd events in the past century to make me hedge my bets.

sokarul, you are the inspector Clouseau of this site.

You haven't read at all the Tunguksa explosion subject, have you?

You wrote:

They think it was from a metor hitting the atmoshpere, 5-10 km above ground.  Don't make the claim the explosion was on the ground and people saw it.

I mentioned from the very start these facts:

The explosion at Tunguska (June 30, 1908, 7:15-7:20 am) took place at an elevation of 7 km. It was seen all the way from Irkutsk and Lake Baikal.

I calculated, using a mere 6000 km between London and Tunguska, the visual obstacle: 4333 KM
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THESE NUMBERS SUCKERUL?

Do you understand you are making things up?  Lets put something into perspective. You claim seeing lights across lake Michigan is impossible on a round earth. But on a flat earth is only happens 6 times in 30 years.  Now you are claiming the light from the explosion cannot be seen on a round earth.  That makes the light being seen on a flat earth just as improbable.  The probability according to you is 6/10957 or .05 percent. So according to you, even on a flat earth is shouldn't be seen.  But it was. One can either think the fake aether flux is just right, or simply your calculations are wrong and round earth physics is correct.  I'm likely to believe the round earth physics.    

Here are the actual newspaper accounts from the period July 1 - 4, 1908:

The explosion at Tunguska, on a round earth, should have been a local affair, restricted to an area of some 200 km x 200 km, nothing could be seen at 600 km, or at 6000 km (London).

Newspaper accounts from London:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm
http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

Now you must remember that the trajectory of the fireball which caused the explosion itself was observed for SOME 10 MINUTES (7:05 - 7:10) PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION, HERE IS THE EXTRAORDINARY DESCRIPTION:

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.

Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).

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 60degrees55' N, 101degrees57' E (LeMaire 1980).

THE TRAJECTORY ITSELF, PRIOR TO 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. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.

More accounts:

A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house. A meteorological observer in England recounted on the nights of June 30th and July 1st:
A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast... causing an undue prolongation of twilight lasting to daybreak on July 1st...There was a complete absence of scintillation or flickering, and no tendency for the formation of streamers, or a luminous arch, characteristic of auroral phenomena... Twilight on both of these night was prolonged to daybreak, and there was no real darkness.
The report that most closely ties these strange cosmic happenings with Tesla's power transmission scheme is that while the sky was aglow with this eerie light it was possible to clearly see ships at sea for miles in the middle of the night.

To the Editor of the Times.
Sir,--Struck with the unusual brightness of the heavens, the band of golfers staying here strolled towards the links at 11 o'clock last evening in order that they might obtain an uninterrupted view of the phenomenon. Looking northwards across the sea they found that the sky had the appearance of a dying sunset of exquisite beauty. This not only lasted but actually grew both in extent and intensity till 2:30 this morning, when driving clouds from the East obliterated the gorgeous colouring. I myself was aroused from sleep at 1:15, and so strong was the light at this hour that I could read a book by it in my chamber quite comfortably. At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink, and the birds began their matutinal song. No doubt others will have noticed this phenomenon, but as Brancaster holds an almost unique position in facing north to the sea, we who are staying here had the best possible view of it.
Yours faithfully,
Holcombe Ingleby.
Dormy House Club, Brancaster, July 1 (1908 )

Some people saw massive, silvery clouds and brilliant, colored sunsets on the horizon, whereas others witnessed luminescent skies at night. Londoners, for instance, could plainly read newsprint at midnight without artificial lights.

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.

I already read it the first fucking time you posted it.  

T

HIS WOULD BE POSSIBLE ONLY ON A FLAT EARTH, GIVEN THE 4333 KM VISUAL OBSTACLE PRESENT on a round earth.

Your 6 times in 30 years possible?  

I have just demonstrated to you the very best proof that there is no curvature between London and Tunguska.

NO BROKEN RECORD HERE AT ALL: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg985060#msg985060

Whatever you "prove" I can easily disprove. You can't even use proper quote tags.    

JUST A PERFECT DEMONSTRATION THAT OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, AND OVER THE LAKE MICHIGAN THERE IS NO POSSIBLE CURVATURE, your childhish efforts amounted to nothing at all.

The only thing childish is your logic. You just don't have the brain power to see your own errors.  

Why do I have to put up with this kind of messages?

Because you never actually proved anything so you keep having to "prove" it over and over.  

sokarul, you haven't done anything. Here is the real deal about the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31008#p31008
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31007#p31007

I actually have, they have table top setups now.  You know, since it was originally done 123 years ago.  
Posting a link to your own posts in not valid evidence.  At least not in this case.  

Please read further:

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

All from the same person.  Who ever that is has as much credibility as you.  I will accept links to scientific journals though.

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html (chapters 5-10)

Doesn't work.

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm

No idea what you are getting at.  We did Lorentz transformations in school. You aren't teaching me anything.  

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michmore.htm

I already know about the experiment and I already know the math, unlike you, on how it was supposed to show an aether.  It still never did.  

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

He died in 1941.  
T

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

Not forgotten, disproved.  

You wrote:

You mean the pictures I which I showed are correct for the round earth model.  How the city sits before the horizon.  You cannot and did not make a comeback for this.  Now post where the Lake Michigan stories come from. A website containing stories about mirages.

Are we to understand sokarul that you also have psychiatric problems in addition to the other ones?

The website about the Lake Michigan story IS ACTUALLY A NEWSPAPER FROM HOLLAND, NO MIRAGE AT ALL.

Here is the story again for you.

Let us go back to the Lake Michigan story; here are the main points:

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg979424#msg979424

YOU COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING FROM A 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM LAKESHORE DRIVE LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE ITSELF.

NO LOOMING, OR ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION CAN HELP THE ROUND EARTH SUPPORTERS.

I dare you to post one reply where you don't copy paste something you already posted.  No matter how many times you post something incorrect, it will not change it to being correct.  Mirage is the answer. For anyone playing the home game, the story is about mirages.  You will notice he will never post the source of the article. A few years ago I found the story.      

I EXPLAINED ALREADY WHY THE VIEW FROM MILWAUKEE/RACINE WAS SEEN SO SELDOM. The air and ether themselves have varying densities at the surface of the lake; when that density is just right, the view of the tallest buildings in Milwaukee and also Racine can be seen easily;

When I strike out one word in your post I get the definition of a mirage.  

the residents of Holland are not staring all of the time across the lake, it is a hobby, sometimes they can see that view, which WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE ON A ROUND EARTH.

Except of times there are mirages.  

Can you address his points Sokarul instead of just always saying "you never proved anything!!!"

Can you address his points Sokarul instead of just always saying "you never proved anything!!!"

Can you post content in a content requiring forum? 

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 01, 2010, 07:01:03 PM

Can you address his points Sokarul instead of just always saying "you never proved anything!!!"

Can you post content in a content requiring forum? 

My hopes were too high 

Quote from: sokarul on July 01, 2010, 07:05:59 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 01, 2010, 07:01:03 PM

Can you address his points Sokarul instead of just always saying "you never proved anything!!!"

Can you post content in a content requiring forum? 

My hopes were too high 

Should I argue like him and just copy what I said?  I addressed his points FAR more than he addressed mine.

Is levee mentally challenged? Perhaps that is what makes him incapable of responding to specific points and causes him to resort to ad hominem to attempt to make points...

Are you suggesting that mentally challenged people have a tendency to insult people and use ad hominems?

This is why I never make sensible points. Why learn science to respond when you can make some benile comment to another benile comment. I guess its some kind of conservation of intelligence law, intelligence requires a local decrease in entropy which requires energy, so really its just a re-working of conservation of energy.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on July 01, 2010, 08:10:04 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on July 01, 2010, 08:04:46 PM

Is levee mentally challenged? Perhaps that is what makes him incapable of responding to specific points and causes him to resort to ad hominem to attempt to make points...

Are you suggesting that mentally challenged people have a tendency to insult people and use ad hominems?

Am I?

You certainly did. You asked if he was mentally challenged, then proceed to say if that were true, it would explain why he resorts to ad hominems to attempt to make points.

Leevee must be the king of tl;dr.

ok Leevee lets pay a game.
we're only going to address ONE point at a time.
#1
your thing about Gases is wrong because of the equivalency pricipal
now its your turn to counter, but please don't just feed me copypasta.
tell me why this is wrong

Levee's posts just make me giggle. Hes like Jackel but worse, at least Jackel will remain on topic while throwing a few insults. This kid will debunk your entire education and make you cry because you'll never be as smart or as cool as him. Levee so we actually feel like reading what you type, how about you take it 1 point at a time like voiceofreason said?