Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon

  • 186 Replies
  • 58893 Views
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #120 on: September 24, 2011, 01:21:14 PM »
Thanks, this is actually something useful and reasonable.

re: the picture I linked to (by shanhitex) and the jetty under the trees, I don't believe there is enough visual information in the photo to be clear of this, in other words I think it is inconclusive.
Well, there is something that appears to be rock below the trees. Something is visible beneath the trees -- can we agree on that? What could this be then?




Quote
However, we don't really know how high the photographer was when they took this photo.  The camera could be easily 4.5m from sea level, going by the fact we can see water above the deck line of the barge.
The deck of the barge looks rather lower than that, but we could argue ad infinitum.

I don't think rotundity would allow one to see anything below the trees.
I think, in fact, that one can see the base of the WindShare tower below the trees, in addition to the jetty. This should not be possible.

"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #121 on: September 24, 2011, 01:41:38 PM »
Ski is correct in everything he says. I suggest that the roundies consult his post history for truth.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #122 on: September 24, 2011, 02:35:19 PM »
Ski is correct in everything he says. I suggest that the roundies consult his post history for truth.

Fortunately for RET, Ski has not claimed anything as absolute fact, unlike what you just did. 

It's dangerous to assume someone is correct in the search for truth.  One must always put another's word up to scrutiny to determine if it is logically sound and represents reality, otherwise you could miss the truth entirely.  If you feel that there is some logical issue with an argument I make, point out that issue.  Don't brush it off as lousy or baseless, or trust one person's word over another.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12170
  • google
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #123 on: September 24, 2011, 05:13:36 PM »
It's dangerous to assume someone is correct in the search for truth.  One must always put another's word up to scrutiny to determine if it is logically sound and represents reality, otherwise you could miss the truth entirely.  If you feel that there is some logical issue with an argument I make, point out that issue.  Don't brush it off as lousy or baseless, or trust one person's word over another.
This is very true, and both FE'ers and RE'ers should pay attention to this post.

>mfw I just called a post about how you're not supposed to assume people correct correct
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #124 on: September 24, 2011, 08:15:37 PM »

The deck of the barge looks rather lower than that, but we could argue ad infinitum.
Agreed.  But I think plus or minus a couple of metres isn't an unreasonable margin for error given the uncertainties of various elements of the photo.

I don't think rotundity would allow one to see anything below the trees.
I think, in fact, that one can see the base of the WindShare tower below the trees, in addition to the jetty. This should not be possible.

20110925-004 by max_wedge, on Flickr
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #125 on: September 25, 2011, 12:52:29 AM »
Ski is correct in everything he says. I suggest that the roundies consult his post history for truth.

Fortunately for RET, Ski has not claimed anything as absolute fact, unlike what you just did. 

It's dangerous to assume someone is correct in the search for truth.  One must always put another's word up to scrutiny to determine if it is logically sound and represents reality, otherwise you could miss the truth entirely.  If you feel that there is some logical issue with an argument I make, point out that issue.  Don't brush it off as lousy or baseless, or trust one person's word over another.

Ski is closer to the truth than any RE'er and most FE'ers. You guys would do well to study his posting history.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 12:58:30 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #126 on: September 25, 2011, 01:59:17 AM »

The deck of the barge looks rather lower than that, but we could argue ad infinitum.
Agreed.  But I think plus or minus a couple of metres isn't an unreasonable margin for error given the uncertainties of various elements of the photo.

Well, if the picture is taken at 2 meters above the surface (a much better estimate of the barge deck), the expected rotund-horizon is only 5km away. If we use your very generous 5 meters, the expected rotund-horizon extends to 8km. That's a remarkable margin of error for the photo.

Quote

20110925-004 by max_wedge, on Flickr
I dislike the two extremely wide-angle views you post above; can you find any others? I will look on the morrow as it is rather late. I don't know why we would expect to see the boardwalk/road. The railing is less than knee high, and I'm not sure the picture magnification allows us to see it.

Even with your generous allotment of 4-5 meters, the jetty should not be visible. It should be at minimum 4ms below the horizon. Given your (unsubstantiated) assumption that the tower base is 4 meters above the water, the base of the tower should not be at all visible -- even given the generous initial terms. Certainly nothing below it.
I suspect that if we tried we could deduce the exact location of the tower base by measuring pixels of the blades (25m) and subtracting from the tower(65m).
There is another white pixelated spot to the left of the tower -- is it possible that the white spot below the trees is not the base as you implied above? This scenario is certainly worse for the case of rotundity, but I cannot state it is true at the moment.
At any rate, thank you for digging up the street view photos. I will try to find some undistorted views of the same area tomorrow.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #127 on: September 25, 2011, 02:09:25 AM »
Ski is correct in everything he says. I suggest that the roundies consult his post history for truth.
You could detect the sarcasm from Jupiter......
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #128 on: September 25, 2011, 09:20:14 AM »

The deck of the barge looks rather lower than that, but we could argue ad infinitum.
Agreed.  But I think plus or minus a couple of metres isn't an unreasonable margin for error given the uncertainties of various elements of the photo.

Well, if the picture is taken at 2 meters above the surface (a much better estimate of the barge deck), the expected rotund-horizon is only 5km away. If we use your very generous 5 meters, the expected rotund-horizon extends to 8km. That's a remarkable margin of error for the photo.

Quote

20110925-004 by max_wedge, on Flickr
I dislike the two extremely wide-angle views you post above; can you find any others? I will look on the morrow as it is rather late. I don't know why we would expect to see the boardwalk/road. The railing is less than knee high, and I'm not sure the picture magnification allows us to see it.

Even with your generous allotment of 4-5 meters, the jetty should not be visible. It should be at minimum 4ms below the horizon. Given your (unsubstantiated) assumption that the tower base is 4 meters above the water, the base of the tower should not be at all visible -- even given the generous initial terms. Certainly nothing below it.
I suspect that if we tried we could deduce the exact location of the tower base by measuring pixels of the blades (25m) and subtracting from the tower(65m).
There is another white pixelated spot to the left of the tower -- is it possible that the white spot below the trees is not the base as you implied above? This scenario is certainly worse for the case of rotundity, but I cannot state it is true at the moment.
At any rate, thank you for digging up the street view photos. I will try to find some undistorted views of the same area tomorrow.

You are putting words in my mouth.  You said you could see the base of the tower not I.  The only visible data in the picture when viewed close up that could possibly be the base of the tower is that one white pixel. I assumed since you thought you could see the base of the tower that you meant this pixel.  I personally don't think it's the base of the tower.  I think the base of the tower is hidden below the horizon.  As far as I am concerned the white pixel could be just about anything, including the blurry visible remains of a boat or some such.

Regarding the wide angle google 'streetview' shots of the boardwalk and the hill that the base of the tower is on, these are all I could find.  But it is quite clear from these that the base of the tower is atleast as high as the roof of the white van on the left of the field of view.  It's also obvious, especially when you look at various angles using  streetview, that there is atleast another metre from the road down boardwalk.   You can see from the metre high fence along the boardwalk that it is most definitely lower than the road surface.  There is a further probably half metre (if not more) from the board walk to the waterline.  So even if the white van is only 2.5m high, that's a total of 4m to the base of the tower from the shoreline.

These conclusions are not unreasonable at all.  Infact I believe these are generous to your argument.  I would say perhaps 4.5-5 metres.

Regarding the view of the barge.  I've used two standards to gauge a rough estimation of the height of the deck (see the cut and pasted sections on the image below).  Twice the height of a man is a fair estimation.  That's about 3.5m, two men of 5.7 feet in height.  The horizon is a little further again.  The photographer is further back, so has to rise a little more than 3.5 m off the ground, lets say 3.7m.  That puts the horizon at 6.9km.


20110926-003 by max_wedge, on Flickr

Regarding measuring the blade.

There is something that any image expert understands about digital images.  As an image becomes more pixelated, details can disappear.  They blur into the background and can not be resolved at all.  If you look at the image of the blades, it's impossible to see where it ends.  Indeed at 91 metres total height, the blade should extend 26 metres down towards the ground, leaving only 39 metres between the tip of the blade and the ground. That's over a third of the length of the tower. Yet in the image it seems to be more like only a 1/4 of the visible tower length and that's only to the tree tops, not to the base.  So we can't really rely on any measurement of the blade.

Another factor about the blade is that it's impossible to tell if the lower pointing blade is perfectly vertical.  If it's not then without knowing it's angle from the perpendicular we can't use it to gauge the visible length of the tower.

I looked for possible yardsticks; there are none.  The only other yard sticks are an indeterminate distance infront or behind the tower.

We could possible use a segment of the CN Tower, measuring it's length from a plan of the tower, and then work out using the degree to which something reduces in apparent size by distance.  We would have to factor in the camera lens and sensor size too I suspect.  We would also have to guess at the photographers distance to the CN Tower.  Any measurement we made would be no more accurate than the estimations we are already arguing about :-)

« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 09:37:42 AM by pitdroidtech »
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #129 on: September 25, 2011, 11:27:22 AM »
I assumed since you thought you could see the base of the tower that you meant this pixel.  I personally don't think it's the base of the tower.  I think the base of the tower is hidden below the horizon.
Your photo says the base of the tower is behind the trees. That the base of the tower could be hiding below a hill of earth and water is patently impossible from the photos you posted of the area.

Quote
So even if the white van is only 2.5m high, that's a total of 4m to the base of the tower from the shoreline.
Which means, even accepting your proposition, it could not be above the horizon. Yet here it is. Either behind the trees as you initially said, or below the trees as I suspect -- either is impossible, which you realize and now begin to change the arbitrary position to satisfy alleged rotundity.


Regarding the view of the barge.  I've used two standards to gauge a rough estimation of the height of the deck (see the cut and pasted sections on the image below).  Twice the height of a man is a fair estimation.  That's about 3.5m, two men of 5.7 feet in height. [/quote]
A man sitting on the stern of a boat is not representative of 5.7 feet in height.



Regarding measuring the blade.

Quote
Another factor about the blade is that it's impossible to tell if the lower pointing blade is perfectly vertical.  If it's not then without knowing it's angle from the perpendicular we can't use it to gauge the visible length of the tower.
The uppermost blades are both nearly aligned with eachother. It stands to reason that the lower blade is nearly vertical. The fact is that you know the comparative numbers shows the base to be behind the trees, just as you posited on your picture -- perfectly impossible for a globe.


"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #130 on: September 25, 2011, 11:31:33 AM »
I found this photo, the turbine is actually quite high above the water.
Look at the car on the road next to the turbine base (it is down and to the left).


definitely more than 4 meters above the water.

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #131 on: September 25, 2011, 05:33:26 PM »
That the base of the tower could be hiding below a hill of earth and water is patently impossible from the photos you posted of the area.
Really?  Seems Momentia's recent photo supports my reading of the Streetview photos rather than yours.


Which means, even accepting your proposition, it could not be above the horizon. Yet here it is. Either behind the trees as you initially said, or below the trees as I suspect -- either is impossible, which you realize and now begin to change the arbitrary position to satisfy alleged rotundity.
I never claimed it was "behind the trees".  From the photo it's not possible to say where the base is.  This is what YOU said, and to which I was responding:
Quote
I think, in fact, that one can see the base of the WindShare tower below the trees, in addition to the jetty.
My caption on the photo about the base was referring to YOUR claim, not my own.


A man sitting on the stern of a boat is not representative of 5.7 feet in height.
Actually it is.  He's wearing a jacket, taking into account his hips (covered by the jacket) I've allowed for the height of his legs.  Infact I cut and past from the waterlevel to his head, more than enough to allow for him standing.  I also cut and paste the height of the deck to top of the porthole, also roughly a man's height.

The uppermost blades are both nearly aligned with eachother. It stands to reason that the lower blade is nearly vertical. The fact is that you know the comparative numbers shows the base to be behind the trees, just as you posited on your picture -- perfectly impossible for a globe.
By my reading, the blades aren't quite level at the top. Also, you completely (and conveniently) ignored the fact that the lower blade blurs out to nothing and it's quite impossible to tell where the tip of the blade actually lies.

regarding this:
Quote
the base to be behind the trees, just as you posited on your picture
- no I was not positing that the base was behind the trees; I was showing that the trees obscure the lower section of the tower hence making it impossible to tell if the base was there or not - the wording was reflective of YOUR hypothesis that you could see the base of the tower - something which is quite absurd when you look at the picture.

Regarding the photo generally, the only thing I am using it to prove is that the figures are sufficiently adequate to support the hypothesis that the earth is round.  It's no kind of proof, but it is certainly no proof that the earth is flat.  Given the missing 2-3 metres or so of boardwalk and roadway in the photo (judging by Momentia's post of the base of the tower), the photo is highly consistent with Round Earth predictions.


First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #132 on: September 25, 2011, 11:56:28 PM »
Quote from: momentia
I found this photo...
Thank you. I really do appreciate the efforts (of both you). I found it difficult to find a photo with a vantage point that might help us.

Really?  Seems Momentia's recent photo supports my reading of the Streetview photos rather than yours.
I disagree. Momentia's photo shows clearly that there is no berm to obstruct the view of the tower (regardless of where the base is located). The only thing that might obscure the tower is the trees. The tower is on the berm, not behind one. It does show, however, that the base is higher above the water line than the four meters either of us supposed.


Quote
I never claimed it was "behind the trees".  From the photo it's not possible to say where the base is.  This is what YOU said, and to which I was responding:
Quote
I think, in fact, that one can see the base of the WindShare tower below the trees, in addition to the jetty.
My caption on the photo about the base was referring to YOUR claim, not my own.
Yet you clearly place the base above the pixelated point I believed to be the base. "Base of tower obscured by trees"
For what it is worth, I now believe you to be correct.


A man sitting on the stern of a boat is not representative of 5.7 feet in height.
Actually it is.  He's wearing a jacket, taking into account his hips (covered by the jacket) I've allowed for the height of his legs.  Infact I cut and past from the waterlevel to his head, more than enough to allow for him standing.  I also cut and paste the height of the deck to top of the porthole, also roughly a man's height.[/quote]
Based on the photo of the kayaker, I whole-heartedly disagree. Yet, this is largely speculative -- again, we could argue forever the point, and in the end, I'm not sure how we can assert this without the help of someone who lives nearby.

Quote
The uppermost blades are both nearly aligned with eachother. It stands to reason that the lower blade is nearly vertical. The fact is that you know the comparative numbers shows the base to be behind the trees, just as you posited on your picture -- perfectly impossible for a globe.
By my reading, the blades aren't quite level at the top. Also, you completely (and conveniently) ignored the fact that the lower blade blurs out to nothing and it's quite impossible to tell where the tip of the blade actually lies.
This is why I said, "nearly aligned." They are not quite level. I looked at the blades in detail close up, and I came to the same conclusion that you did. It is impossible to tell with any certain certainty where the bottom blade ends. This is why I did not make an attempt to actually measure the tower using that scale. It would ultimately lead to an answer too specious to benefit us. I have no desire to work backwards.


Quote
Regarding the photo generally, the only thing I am using it to prove is that the figures are sufficiently adequate to support the hypothesis that the earth is round. 
I disagree strongly. I think the fact we can see below the trees at all is proof there exists no hill of water attested to be globularism. There also is a dark line above the water that at all appearances represents the jetty. I cannot reconcile this with rotundity. As to the boardwalk/roadway, were it not for the car on the road, it would not appear to us at all in that photo either, but we can agree, I think, this is because of the angle, not the rotundity of the earth.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4905
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #133 on: September 26, 2011, 01:27:37 AM »
Read and understand the theory of gravity before you argue against it.    Gravity pulls equally towards the centre of the sphere  on all points at the surface of the sphere.  Hence water is always pulled to the centre of the Earth, ie, downwards.  I can't believe I'm explaining this to you...?!?!?

You have not done your homework...there is no such thing as attractive gravity...here is the complete demonstration:

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them disobey the law of laws which is supposed to know no exception.

GASES

The ingredients of the air, oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases, though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation. This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, 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?

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.


CLOUDS AND MIST

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.


And remember, the trajectories of the clouds clearly show that the Earth could not and cannot rotate around its own axis:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143


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.  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.


Here are many more examples, pitroidtech:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542

It is very obvious you have no idea what is going on, the fact that the gravity is not attractive...



That's right, it could not be seen.  Only on 12 days out of every 30 years could it be seen.  This has been explained by unusual air inversion events which lead to a large degree of refraction.  If it was actually possible to see that far in normal conditions, then every single day it would be visible.

Again, you have no idea as to what is going on...you CANNOT use either terrestrial refraction or optical reflection to explain the fact that a 40 meter building can be seen all the way from 128 km distance; no formula of terrestrial refraction can do that for you, and the best known optical reflection phenomenon is the Ice Blink, diffuse and unclear lights from the ice in very special conditions.

Please read again:

'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

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 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 (you can also use the above formula on atmospheric refraction to see how impossible it is to see shapes of buildings over a 128 km distance).

THE TALLEST BUILDING IN RACINE IS THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 40 METERS; IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS COURTHOUSE FROM 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM HOLLAND.


To argue about refraction given the 1000 meter visual obstacle means very clearly you do not understand the issues involved here. I already posted an online refraction formula, you will never see anything even with a 400 meter visual obstacle in front of you, not to mention 1000 meters.

The facts are very clear: the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat, that is the ONLY WAY to see the buildings from Milwaukee and Racine from a distance of 128 km.


AETHER VIBRATIONS

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580

The Airy experiment of 1871, clearly proving the existence of aether, it is very important to read these facts.


The science of aether vibrations is called CYMATICS.

Here is a short introduction, the lines of force that become visible, being activated by either sound (as in the following videos, or by applying electrical tension, as in the Biefeld-Brown effect):






The lines of force that appear, as the frequency is increased, are a manifestation of the aether.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_cymatics.htm





The most formidable work on Aether Vibrations:

http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/SODA_chapter6.html


Therefore, the glow of the trajectory of the ball lightning, and the glow after the explosion is an activation of the aether...


But, since the RE dismisses the aether theory out of hand, we find ourselves in the morning of June 30, 1908, with the sun having just risen above Siberia. On the other side of the globe, it is nightfall. We are told that the light of the Sun cannot be seen on the other side of a globe, because of curvature.


The glow of the trajectory was seen from 0:00 to 0:15 in London; and the intensity of that radiation was much less than that of the explosion itself. It could not have been seen even at some 600 km distance, due to the curvature.


If the skies were aglow for days afterwards, how could it be the flash of the explosion? 

The glow is a manifestation, as I have demonstrated above, of the aether...if you dismiss the aether theory, you must explain how the initial glow, and the flash itself were seen from 600, 1000 and 7000 km distances.

The glow was carried through the atmosphere due to refraction by ice crystals.  The glow from volcanoes, forest fires and many other phenomenon are known to be seen from great distances.  Have you never seen a glow of a light from around the corner? The point is that the event itself, was not visible.  Only the after effects of the event, that spread through the atmosphere, were visible.

Are we here at a high-school bull session, where the most inept explanations are offerred to try to get your way out of this situation?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED HERE? Please read the trajectory of the clouds thread again; the atmosphere cannot rotate with the earth, and in fact does not rotate. Do you want me to bring here the entire file, so that you can understand the problems with a rotating earth?

THE FLASH WAS SEEN INSTANTANEOUSLY FROM LONDON, IRKUTSK, AND LAKE BAIKAL. Please give up the bullshit with the ice crystals...

Also the glow of the trajectory itself was seen all the way from London...no way you could see that from a distance of 7000 km, with a visual obstacle of 7463 km to deal with...to dream about ice crystals is more than ludicrous...the visual obstacle for Lake Baikal, over that 600 km distance, is some 21,5 km; for Irkutsk is 67,5 km, over a 1000 km distance...to talk about ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of both the glow of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.


The fact that the glow of the trajectory itself and the flash of the explosion were seen from London, destroys immediately any round/spherical earth hypotheses.

It is the most extraordinary and perfect proof that the Earth is indeed flat.

The visual obstacle over a distance of 7000 km, from London to river Tunguska is 7463 km.

No flash, no glow could have been seen on a round earth; if the light from the Sun could not reach London, at that point in time, at 7:20 am in Siberia, due to curvature, HOW could an explosion which did take place at some 7 km in altitude, be seen from London? The visual limit on a round earth is some 400 km; beyond that NOTHING COULD BE SEEN.





« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 02:30:49 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4905
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #134 on: September 26, 2011, 01:54:31 AM »
Why should I reword anything.  My math does not produce a 59 metre curvature for this scenario.   Show where my attempts are lousy.  If you don't, I have no reason to think you understand anything I'm trying to tell you.  the fact is that round earth theory does not predict any significant obstacle in this case.  And the fact that there isn't makes this photograph completely in support of RET.

Here are the original posts in question:

If this is from the same altitude as the last Grimsby photo, then my last assessment still holds.  The city is sitting on top of the curvature, instead of behind it.

From 170 metres your horizon is 46.6 km away, and toronto is - what do you know only 2 km further.  So again, a photo where toronto is sitting on top of your "obstacle" 


Let us take a distance of 110 km. Then the city would sit on top of a curvature of some 237 meters.

From Toronto to Grimsby we have a distance of 53 km, + 2 km to reach those 240 meters.

Over that distance, we have a curvature of 59 meters.

and the entire visible area of lake ontario is your ascending slope.  your descending slope will always be hidden by the ascending slope, so there's no real reason to expect to see it.

Your argument is more than lousy...that is why I gave you a chance to reword your message.

The entire visible area of lake Ontario is not your ascending slope; we are not taking here a distance of 110 km...we have a distance of 55 km.

The ascending/rising slope occurs to the midpoint of the distance, there we have a maximum curvature of 59 meters, and then we have a descending slope all the way to Toronto.

Now you understand?


In these photographs there is a completely flat surface of the water; no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature (that is, the wall of water measuring some 59 meters in height), and no descending slope:



There is nothing else to discuss or to argue about...no ascending slope, no curvature whatsoever, just a perfectly flat surface of the lake for you to see.



Again, no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature...


4 metres in the first photo is only 2 pixels.

The problem is not the pixels, but the fact that there is no ascending slope, and no visual obstacle of some 6 meters (curvature of 4 meters).



There is absolutely no curvature from Port Credit to Toronto.



Here's where your lack of understanding of this stuff shows: "no midpoint visual obstacle."  You're assuming that some visual obstacle has to exist for there to be curvature.  But the visual obstacle doesn't have to be midpoint, and sometimes it's directly underneath what we're looking at, as is the case with the Grimsby shot of toronto, with toronto sitting on the "obstacle" instead of behind it.

and the place where the shore/horizon cuts through the ships indicates that the photo was not taken on the beach,  although without knowing how tall those ships are we have no way of knowing how high we are.  We can guess no less than 10 metres, but we could be anywhere as high as 30m


Again, lousy arguments, which do show, just as in the case of lake Ontario, that you do not understand the issues involved.

Let us then ascend to an altitude of 30 meters.



On a spherical earth we should see: an ascending slope, a midpoint curvature of some 22,4 meters, AND A VISUAL OBSTACLE OF 16,5 METERS.

That ship is not part of either an ascending, or a descending slope; and we have a full view of the White Cliffs of Dover, the entire 90-100 meter portion...

Please understand: NO ASCENDING SLOPE TO THAT SHIP, NO MIDPOINT CURVATURE OF 22,6 METERS (UNMISTAKAABLE FROM 30 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH), NO DESCENDING SLOPE, NO 16,5 METER VISUAL OBSTACLE.

The surface of the English Channel is completely flat from one side to the other, over a distance of 34 km.



Why was this only observed around Europe? If the Earth was flat, shouldn't there be reports of this event coming in from thousands of kilometers away in all directions?

Actually I did come across some reports from ships which were sailing in the Indian Ocean, that the explosion was seen from that location; I tried to find out what happened in China, Japan, Korea, but the language barrier prohibits any further research.

The fact that both the glow and the flash of the explosion were seen from a distance of 7000 km, from London, should be more than sufficient for you to understand that the Earth is actually flat, please see my previous message also...
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 02:33:17 AM by levee »

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #135 on: September 26, 2011, 06:38:15 AM »
Levee, your theories and ideas are not proven by any means; the world's weather scientists are virtually unanimous in their understanding of refraction and it's abilities to distribute light great distances in unique circumstances (such as the Tungaska explosion  and the the Lake Ontario incident), you alone stand in defiance of their knowledge and expertise.  Congratulations.

But please don't come here and accuse us of bullshitting and ignoring evidence; it is you who ignore the evidence in preference for your own unique view of science.  That is your right, but please don't be so arrogant as to assume you are somehow the only gifted individual capable of understanding, and that the rest of us RE'ers are misguided fools.  The bottomline is that it comes down to difference of opinion, and your posturing as some kind of self appointed expert in the various sciences of the world does not become you.

Regarding your submissions, I say again, the view of Lake Ontario was a unique circumstance.  If it was due to the flatness of earth (and not atmospheric and weather conditions) then you would be able to see it just about every day.  You haven't answered this.  You cherry pick the points you respond to, the sure sign of someone not at all sure of their facts and with no real case to argue.

You have not answered my graph showing why we can't see curvature; tell me this, why should I be able to see 60m high curvature over 57km?  All of  these points can be easily demonstrated with geometry, but you in your wisdom, call our arguments lousy and tell us we don't understand, instead of debating the issue on it's merits. 

You argue that the clouds can't possibly adhere to the Coriolis affect, yet massively expensive supercomputers model weather very well based on the phenomena.  Features of hurricanes would be unexplained without it.

This is supposed to be a place of science and reason - please do us all a favour and restrict your posts to reasoned argument and refrain from the name calling you are resorting to.  If you can resist the urge to make inferences that us RE'ers are stupid and lacking in comprehension, then I might be interested in discussion your submission in detail. 

However, that said, this thread is for photographic evidence, and I consider you wildly off topic when you talk about weather, tunguska, and eye witness accounts of people viewing lights and buildings over lake Ontario.  If you wish to discuss these things start your own thread and link to it.
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #136 on: September 26, 2011, 06:48:22 AM »
Quote from: momentia
I found this photo...
Thank you. I really do appreciate the efforts (of both you). I found it difficult to find a photo with a vantage point that might help us.
You sir are a gentleman, and I mean that with no sarcasm intended. :-)
Based on the photo of the kayaker, I whole-heartedly disagree. Yet, this is largely speculative -- again, we could argue forever the point, and in the end, I'm not sure how we can assert this without the help of someone who lives nearby.
This is why I said, "nearly aligned." They are not quite level. I looked at the blades in detail close up, and I came to the same conclusion that you did. It is impossible to tell with any certain certainty where the bottom blade ends. This is why I did not make an attempt to actually measure the tower using that scale. It would ultimately lead to an answer too specious to benefit us. I have no desire to work backwards.
I agree.

Quote
Regarding the photo generally, the only thing I am using it to prove is that the figures are sufficiently adequate to support the hypothesis that the earth is round. 
I disagree strongly. I think the fact we can see below the trees at all is proof there exists no hill of water attested to be globularism. There also is a dark line above the water that at all appearances represents the jetty. I cannot reconcile this with rotundity. As to the boardwalk/roadway, were it not for the car on the road, it would not appear to us at all in that photo either, but we can agree, I think, this is because of the angle, not the rotundity of the earth.

The white speck could be anything. Literally anything.  It could be a gull much closer to the barge than the Toronto shoreline.  As you said, the base of the tower could be more than even more than 4m from sealevel, which allows even more latitude on the RE side of the argument with respect to the position of the photographer and their height relative to the barge.  I can see no black line, if you would be so kind as to point out what you are referring to I will give you my own assessment of what it means.

Regarding the line I drew on the photograph, it was not intended to point to the base of the tower.  Regardless of how you interpreted my intent, that does not make it true.  My intent was to draw attention to the general position of trees themselves, not the tower.   You can read the tag thus; "I note your statement that the base of the tower can be seen, but look, there are a bunch of tress obscuring the tower, and even if the base were behind the trees, you would not be able to tell from this photo"

I think this all supports my intent with this thread which is to collect repeated, fully detailed data with which to make qualified comparisons and arguments.

I will eventually get back to that purpose, but I see this thread as ongoing and don't feel any need to rush forward - I am after quality of data that will build to quantity,  not quantity rushed out that is useless as a basis of study.

Many thanks for continuing to participate, to both RE'ers and FE'ers contributing usefully to this thread.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 06:57:35 AM by pitdroidtech »
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #137 on: September 26, 2011, 02:56:12 PM »
The white speck could be anything. Literally anything.  It could be a gull much closer to the barge than the Toronto shoreline.
I agree. The presence of the other mysterious "white spot" suggests another source may be possible. It may be a vehicle on the road, for example. Or a bird as you suggest.

Yet, it is certainly not possible for the base to be below the horizon in this photo.


Quote
I can see no black line, if you would be so kind as to point out what you are referring to I will give you my own assessment of what it means.
I will dig this up later.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4905
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #138 on: September 27, 2011, 01:33:03 AM »
Levee, your theories and ideas are not proven by any means; the world's weather scientists are virtually unanimous in their understanding of refraction and it's abilities to distribute light great distances in unique circumstances (such as the Tungaska explosion  and the the Lake Ontario incident), you alone stand in defiance of their knowledge and expertise.  Congratulations.

As I said, those scientists have formulas at their disposal to work with; no refraction formula will help you with a 1000 meter visual obstacle. From Holland to Milwaukee and Racine we have a distance of 128 km, with a curvature of 321 meters. The actual visual obstacle is around 1000 meters. I also posted here an online terrestrial refraction formula (one of the most complicated, it takes everything into account), you can use it any way you want, you will NEVER see the County Courthouse of Racine from 128 km distance.

The tallest building in Milwaukee is 183 meters high, the tallest building in Racine is 40 meters high.

Please use any refraction formula you can think of; even if we would ascend to, say, 200 meters, no refraction formula will work miracles for you.

If you will come to your senses, you will see that I am right.


Refraction cannot help you in the case of the explosion of Tunguska, in 1908. No refraction formula can explain the fact that an explosion which did take place at some 7 km in altitude, was seen from Irkutsk, with a 67,5 km visual obstacle. Please understand these numbers: 67,5 km.

Between London and Tunguska there are 7000 km, the visual obstacle measures 7463 meters.

The only way the explosion could have been seen from London (actually, even the initial trajectory of the ball lightning was also observed, from 0:00 to 0:15) is if the earth has a flat surface.

In the case of a round earth, nothing could have been seen beyond a range of some 400 km; the numbers are pretty clear. If you want to dream about refraction, and ice crystals, go ahead...


Let us go to Spain, right on the beach.



And a video from exactly the same spot...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


There is no curvature between Spain and Morocco, over the strait of Gibraltar...


« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 01:35:38 AM by levee »

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #139 on: September 27, 2011, 05:37:07 AM »
As I said, those scientists have formulas at their disposal to work with; no refraction formula will help you with a 1000 meter visual obstacle. From Holland to Milwaukee and Racine we have a distance of 128 km, with a curvature of 321 meters. The actual visual obstacle is around 1000 meters. I also posted here an online terrestrial refraction formula (one of the most complicated, it takes everything into account), you can use it any way you want, you will NEVER see the County Courthouse of Racine from 128 km distance.

The tallest building in Milwaukee is 183 meters high, the tallest building in Racine is 40 meters high.

Please use any refraction formula you can think of; even if we would ascend to, say, 200 meters, no refraction formula will work miracles for you.

If you will come to your senses, you will see that I am right.
Not so.  In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.  If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.

You still haven't answered me; why can't the lights be seen every night, and only for 12 nights out of 30 years?  Reason, because the unique circumstances that allow such extreme refraction only occur very occasionally.

BTW, this quote explains perfectly the scientific accepted formula for the refraction affect caused by temperature inversion:
Quote
If the vertical temperature gradient is +12.9°C per 100 meters (reminder: Positive sign means temperature gets hotter as one goes higher), then horizontal light rays will just follow the curvature of the Earth, and the horizon will appear flat. If the gradient is less the rays are not bent enough and get lost in space. That is the normal situation of a spherical, convex horizon. But if the gradient gets larger, say +18°C per 100 meters, an observer would see the horizon as concave, the right and left ends turned upwards as if one were standing at the bottom of a saucer

In the right conditions, light rays keep being refracted back towards the surface as they reach the higher warmer air, thus maintaining a path parallel to the surface.


Refraction cannot help you in the case of the explosion of Tunguska, in 1908. No refraction formula can explain the fact that an explosion which did take place at some 7 km in altitude, was seen from Irkutsk, with a 67,5 km visual obstacle. Please understand these numbers: 67,5 km.

Between London and Tunguska there are 7000 km, the visual obstacle measures 7463 meters.

The only way the explosion could have been seen from London (actually, even the initial trajectory of the ball lightning was also observed, from 0:00 to 0:15) is if the earth has a flat surface.

In the case of a round earth, nothing could have been seen beyond a range of some 400 km; the numbers are pretty clear. If you want to dream about refraction, and ice crystals, go ahead...
It's not my dream, it's a known phenomena.  Ice crystal formation and subsequent refraction over large distances has been observed by the space shuttle entering the atmosphere.  The same explanation can be applied, and is applied to the tunguska explosion, by hundreds of scientists with many years of education and research experience.  Why should I believe you over them? I don't know anything about you.  What's your qualification that allows you to cast aspersions on the worlds scientists so casually?
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #140 on: September 27, 2011, 06:06:05 AM »
The only way the explosion could have been seen from London (actually, even the initial trajectory of the ball lightning was also observed, from 0:00 to 0:15) is if the earth has a flat surface.

Who said an explosion was seen in London? You seem to be making stuff up. As far as I can see, all that was seen in Europe was a long lasting glow. Not an explosion.

Quote
Let us go to Spain, right on the beach.

...

And a video from exactly the same spot...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


There is no curvature between Spain and Morocco, over the strait of Gibraltar...

  • How much curvature should be seen over the strait of Gibraltar? Considering there's no real landmarks on the opposite coast, or any information on how high the image and video was taken from, it seems a bit daft to derive any accurate measurements from it.
  • Isn't the strait of Gibraltar a flowing body of water? Why are you assuming that it's settled into a level state?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4905
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #141 on: September 28, 2011, 01:37:36 AM »
Not so.  In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.  If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.

Please research the subject before making such statements here...the known formulas for atmospheric/astronomic refraction cannot work miracles for you...it would require a continuous layer of clouds, which is not the case anyway...given the visual obstacle of 7463 km, your explanations are very desperate to say the least...use any formula you can find...you will never obtain more than say, some 100 km (at best) for continuous atmospheric refraction...

Ice crystals cannot explain the fact that the explosion from Tunguska was seen from Irkutsk and London; even to suggest such ridiculous explanations means that you do not understand the facts involved here...

If the light from the Sun could not reach London, at that point in time, at 7:20 am in Siberia, due to curvature, HOW could an explosion which did take place at some 7 km in altitude, be seen from London? The visual limit on a round earth is some 400 km; beyond that NOTHING COULD BE SEEN.



As I said, it does not matter HOW many times the lights from Racine were seen from Holland...even ONCE, it means the end of the round earth theory...no formula can explain the lights from Racine, given the almost 1000 meter visual obstacle...again, use the known formulas, and you will see that I am right...


“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.”

The facts are clear: even the trajectory itself was seen, before the explosion.

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.

This happened after 0:20 am; an hour later the glow began to disperse...these were the reports all over Europe, a brightness of great intensity, followed by dispersion some hours later...no ice crystals will explain the fact that an explosion which took place at some 7 km in altitude, was seen from the other side of the globe with a 7463 km visual obstacle.


And pitroid tech, the water cannot stay curved because gravity is not a pull or attractive...please read again:

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them disobey the law of laws which is supposed to know no exception.

GASES

The ingredients of the air, oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases, though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation. This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, 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?

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.


CLOUDS AND MIST

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.


And remember, the trajectories of the clouds clearly show that the Earth could not and cannot rotate around its own axis:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143


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.  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.


Here are many more examples, pitroidtech:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542


You had no idea about the Barometric Pressure Paradox, or about the fact that gases in the atmosphere DO NOT obey an attractive gravity law...please explain to us here how the surface of the water would stay curved without attractive gravity...your enthusiasm runs way ahead of your knowledge of real science...please do your homework on refraction and ice crystals...
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 01:43:55 AM by levee »

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #142 on: September 28, 2011, 04:25:52 AM »
Not so.  In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.  If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.

Please research the subject before making such statements here...the known formulas for atmospheric/astronomic refraction cannot work miracles for you...it would require a continuous layer of clouds, which is not the case anyway...given the visual obstacle of 7463 km, your explanations are very desperate to say the least...use any formula you can find...you will never obtain more than say, some 100 km (at best) for continuous atmospheric refraction...
You just proved how little you understand about refraction.  Refraction is not caused by light reflecting off clouds!!   It's caused by light passing through different temperature layers.  Air settles into layers of different temperatures depending on conditions.  An inversion is a condition where a layer of warm air sits above a layer of cold air.  Because warm air is less dense than cold air, as light rises into the warm air it is refracted back down to the colder air.  This process can continue for as long as the temperature inversion exists and as long as it is at the sweet spot of about 13 degrees per 100m.


Refraction by inversion layer by max_wedge, on Flickr

You need to read about the differences between refraction and reflection, and you need to research the causes and consequences of temperature inversions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
An example of refraction:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_%28meteorology%29
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4905
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #143 on: September 28, 2011, 06:48:40 AM »
I am talking about optical refraction/reflection...terrestrial refraction won't help you, as I have explained already.

From the very start, I posted here the best terrestrial/atmospheric formula available, it takes everything into account: refraction constant, temperature, altitude, distance, air pressure.

http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#Terrestrial


Let us go back to the data from lake Michigan:

'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

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS


You can use the online formula anyway you want...I have just proved scientifically to you that you cannot see the lights of a building of some 40 meters in height from a distance of 128 km.

The visual obstacle is over 950 meters, as you can see.

Even if we ascend to some 500 meters, it is useless.

Using the most sophisticated formula for terrestrial refraction, the game is over for the round earth theory, no way those details could be seen, that is why I invited you to come to your senses.

OPTICAL REFLECTION/REFRACTION also cannot be used, as the best known phenomenon is called the Ice Blink, very diffuse, unclear reflections of the ice, under very special conditions...please read the data again, three communities could be seen at once.


Now, on that site we also have an atmospheric refraction formula...no use for 1000 km distances.

Let us read again.

The first report of the explosion was in the Irkutsk paper dated July 2, 1908, published two days after the explosion:

...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash, not like thunder, but as if from the fall of large stones or from gunfire was heard. All the buildings shook and at the same time a forked tongue of flames broke through the cloud.


No optical reflection/refraction formula can explain this fact: an explosion which did take place at some 7 km in altitude, was seen from 1000 km distance, DESPITE a 67.5 km visual obstacle.

Please back up your fantasies about ice crystals and the like with a formula, but it is useless.

READ AGAIN:

...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash...

THE EXPLOSION ITSELF WAS SEEN, AND THE INITIAL TRAJECTORY, without any refraction/reflection, everything was clearly seen, and the sky was cloudless. No refraction whatsoever, a very clear view of every detail, from 1000 km distance. With a visual obstacle of 67.5 km, this would have been utterly impossible on a round earth.


If we increase the distance to some 7000 km, it becomes hopeless for the flat earth theory.

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.

This happened after 0:20 am; an hour later the glow began to disperse...these were the reports all over Europe, a brightness of great intensity, followed by dispersion some hours later...no ice crystals will explain the fact that an explosion which took place at some 7 km in altitude, was seen from the other side of the globe with a 7463 km visual obstacle.

To talk about ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of both the glow of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.

According to your explanation, we should have a 24 hour a day constant sunlight...this is what you wrote:

In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.

Certainly the sun's rays of light (official theory) will be parallel to some portion of the surface at some time in the earth's rotation...that is why I invited you to think.



And now even more proofs about the Tunguska explosion.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     


The Gobi desert is over 2000 km away from Tunguska...the explosion was seen again clearly...no refraction/reflection...the facts are very clear...       
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 07:14:56 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4905
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #144 on: September 28, 2011, 06:49:57 AM »
And we all waiting for you to answer:

And pitroid tech, the water cannot stay curved because gravity is not a pull or attractive...please read again:

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them disobey the law of laws which is supposed to know no exception.

GASES

The ingredients of the air, oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases, though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation. This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, 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?

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.


CLOUDS AND MIST

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.


And remember, the trajectories of the clouds clearly show that the Earth could not and cannot rotate around its own axis:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143


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.  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.


Here are many more examples, pitroidtech:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542


You had no idea about the Barometric Pressure Paradox, or about the fact that gases in the atmosphere DO NOT obey an attractive gravity law...please explain to us here how the surface of the water would stay curved without attractive gravity...your enthusiasm runs way ahead of your knowledge of real science...please do your homework on refraction and ice crystals...

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #145 on: September 28, 2011, 05:09:29 PM »
I am talking about optical refraction/reflection...terrestrial refraction won't help you, as I have explained already.

From the very start, I posted here the best terrestrial/atmospheric formula available, it takes everything into account: refraction constant, temperature, altitude, distance, air pressure.

http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#Terrestrial



The equations for Terrestrial refraction that you are working from specifically exclude affects due to inversions:

Quote
Remember that the above does not include atmospheric conditions like convective boundary layers and inversions
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #146 on: September 28, 2011, 06:12:47 PM »
And we all waiting for you to answer:

And pitroid tech, the water cannot stay curved because gravity is not a pull or attractive...please read again:

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them disobey the law of laws which is supposed to know no exception.
This is complete rubbish.  There is no evidence of any of this, you are plucking at straws. In fact all of the above, the movements of the planets, the shapes of galaxies, the behaviour of meteorites, the design of satellites ALL confirm gravitational theory very nicely.

There may still be some things not understood about gravity, but that which we do understand is confirmed thorough observation and experiment.

.please do your homework on refraction and ice crystals...
I answered this already. Please do your homework properly

About the other points you raise:

1. Ozone is created in the upper atmosphere.  As it falls back to earth it degrades back to oxygen.

2. Nitrogen is only 3% lighter than air.  This along with the constant state of motion of the air in the atmosphere (below the stratosphere, air is constantly on the move), means any particle are held in suspension, much like shaking a bottle of oil and water prevents the oil and water from settling out to different layers.

These facts are well studied by climate scientists.  As often is the case with your submissions, they are cut and pasted from some website which you have failed to quote the source for, and I wouldn't be surprised if, like your theories on aether and water-filled telescopes, you are working off scientific findings from the middle part of the 1800's which have since been superseded by newer more accurate experiments and research.   

3. Water is not held as droplets it is held as water vapour. 

4. The inputs that determine trajectories of clouds include local affects as well as the Coriolis affect.  Usually local inputs are stronger than the Coriolis affect and cancel out any obvious input from this source.  In large weather formations however, such as Hurricanes and movement of air from areas of low pressure to high pressure or vice versa, the Coriolis affect is evident.

5. The so called Barometric Pressure Paradox is nothing of the sort.  It's well understood and easily explained by science why it is that gases do not settle into layers within the atmosphere.  Gravity survives intact upon scrutiny of the atmosphere and the various gases.

Also, just in case you do (or have) mentioned it in this thread, gravity does not increase over the oceans. This is proven by the recent GRACE satellite.  There are no unexplained gravity anomalies.  Gravity is not disproved.


Most of what we are discussing here is High School Science 101.  It's funny that you ask me to do my research, when you are the one who seems blatantly unaware of the accepted models, which have been proven by experiments and observations too numerous to mention.  By all means, believe the crackpot theorists if you like, but please DO NOT pretend their work is accepted by the mainstream. 
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4905
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #147 on: September 29, 2011, 12:56:53 AM »
We have discussed already, on this site, the phenomenon called looming...the extension of inversion layers...that is why I invited you to do your homework...your only hope was terrestrial refraction...

Remember?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39108.msg983508#msg983508

We discussed it, in fact, in relation to our discussion here:  that the County Courthouse of Racine can be seen from some 128 km distance.


A very strong inversion is necessary before the superior mirage is noticeable. There is no analogue to the heated surface and sharp temperature gradient above it in this case, so the superior mirage with crossing of rays and reflection is seldom observed. The superior mirage is also called the polar mirage, because it is most frequently observed in that region, over a very cold surface.



Ánd here is a table with what can be expected in this looming phenomenon:




That is why I did not bring looming in discussion here...it won't help at all...your best bet was terrestrial refraction, and the formula clearly indicates it would be impossible to see any building in both Racine and Milwaukee from Holland.

Clear, very precise demonstration...the only rubbish can be found in your messages, and plenty of it...


Therefore, the surface of lake Michigan, over a distance of 128 km, is completely flat.

To what altitude should you ascend to actually see the County Courthouse, from Holland? EXACTLY! To no less than 871 meters.

From Holland it is absolutely impossible to see anything from Milwaukee or Racine; the curvature measures some 321 meters, and the visual obstacle measures 984 meters; no looming or terrestrial refraction will help you, as we have seen...



The trajectory of the ball lightning was precisely seen from both Irkutsk and the Gobi desert.

The facts again:

The first report of the explosion was in the Irkutsk paper dated July 2, 1908, published two days after the explosion:

...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash, not like thunder, but as if from the fall of large stones or from gunfire was heard. All the buildings shook and at the same time a forked tongue of flames broke through the cloud.


The sky was cloudless; the precise trajectory was observed, and the explosion itself, no refraction/reflection...

The visual obstacle measures 67.5 km. It is the end of the round earth theory.


And now even more proofs about the Tunguska explosion.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     


The Gobi desert is over 2000 km away from Tunguska...the explosion was seen again clearly...no refraction/reflection...the facts are very clear...       


Let us calculate the precise numbers.

Elevation of the Gobi desert: 900 - 1500 meters; to satisfy the RE requirements, we will ascend to 2000 meters.

Distance to Tunguska, over 2000 km...

Then the visual obstacle will measure: 275 KILOMETERS (two hundred and seventy-five kilometers).


The precise trajectory and explosion seen all the way from the Gobi desert, despite a 275 km visual obstacle (on a spherical earth)...it is over for the round earth theory...




*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4905
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #148 on: September 29, 2011, 01:16:10 AM »
It is not a good idea to argue with me about gravity...

In fact all of the above, the movements of the planets, the shapes of galaxies, the behaviour of meteorites, the design of satellites ALL confirm gravitational theory very nicely.

Again, you did not do your homework...not at all...you have no idea what attractive gravity involves...you are just repeating what you have learned in high school, with no rational, critical thinking about these facts...please wake up.

IMPOSSIBILITY OF A SPHERICALLY SHAPED SUN

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.


What were you saying?  the movements of the planets, the shapes of galaxies, the behaviour of meteorites, the design of satellites ALL confirm gravitational theory very nicely....not by a long shot...


Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced in repulsion as well as attraction. A perturbation displacing a planet or a satellite by a few seconds of arc must direct it from its orbit. It is assumed that the orbits of all planets and satellites did not change because of perturbations. A regulating force emanating from the primary appears to act. In the gravitational system there is no place left for such regulating forces.


The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference (see the reference). As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

J. Zenneck, “Gravitation” in Encyclop. der Mathem. Wiss., vol. V, part I p.44.

The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.


GALAXIES DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY LAW, on the contrary...

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=551#p24643


METEORITES DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY LAW:

Meteors, after entering the terrestrial atmosphere at about 200 km. above the ground (in the official theory), are violently displaced toward the east. These displacements of the meteors are usually ascribed to winds blowing in the upper atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure at a height of 45 km. is supposed to be but “a small fraction of one millimeter of mercury.” On the other hand, the velocity with which the meteors approach the earth is between 15 and 75 km. per second, on the average about 40 km. per second or over 140,000 km. per hour. If winds of 150 km. per hour velocity were permanently blowing at the height where the meteors become visible, it would not be possible for such winds of rarefied atmosphere to visibly deflect stones falling at the rate of 140,000 km. per hour.
Approaching the earth, the meteorites suddenly slow down and turn aside, and some are even repelled into space. “A few meteors give the appearance of penetrating into our atmosphere and then leaving it, ricocheting as it were.”

COMETS DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY LAW:

The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun. “There is beyond question some profound secret and mystery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails” ; enormous sweep which it (the tail) makes round the sun in perihelion, in the manner of a straight and rigid rod, is in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of the recorded laws of motion” Comets’ tails are clearly subject to some strong repulsive force, which drives the matter composing them away from the sun with enormously high velocities” (W.H. Pickering)


Ozone is created in the upper atmosphere.  As it falls back to earth it degrades back to oxygen.


DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE? Certainly you do not...

Ozone-oxygen cycle: the atomic oxygen IMMEDIATELY REACTS WITH other oxygen molecules, to form ozone again.

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


Nitrogen is only 3% lighter than air.  This along with the constant state of motion of the air in the atmosphere (below the stratosphere, air is constantly on the move), means any particle are held in suspension, much like shaking a bottle of oil and water prevents the oil and water from settling out to different layers.

Please give up these childish, unscientific notions...

IF THERE IS ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THEN GASES MUST SEPARATE INTO LAYERS, ACCORDING TO THEIR SPECIFIC WEIGHTS.

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?

End of story. Gases do not obey an attractive gravity law.


Water is not held as droplets it is held as water vapour. 

You are dreaming, again...

DEFINITION OF A CLOUD:

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.

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.


Clouds and mist DO defy attractive gravity...


The inputs that determine trajectories of clouds include local affects as well as the Coriolis affect.  Usually local inputs are stronger than the Coriolis affect and cancel out any obvious input from this source.  In large weather formations however, such as Hurricanes and movement of air from areas of low pressure to high pressure or vice versa, the Coriolis affect is evident.


DO YOUR HOMEWORK...here are the facts on the GEOCENTRIC CORIOLIS EFFECT:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747

You have no knowledge of Mach's Principle...please study and give up your ignorance...


The so called Barometric Pressure Paradox is nothing of the sort.  It's well understood and easily explained by science why it is that gases do not settle into layers within the atmosphere.  Gravity survives intact upon scrutiny of the atmosphere and the various gases.

BUT IT IS. The barometric pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL BY SCIENCE.

BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX data:

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan, for example, (at 25 degrees N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

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.  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 barometric pressure paradox CANNOT BE explained in terms of attractive gravity...


Also, just in case you do (or have) mentioned it in this thread, gravity does not increase over the oceans. This is proven by the recent GRACE satellite.  There are no unexplained gravity anomalies.  Gravity is not disproved.

Again, you did not your homework...


Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance. The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much. (G. B. Airy.) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.


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. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.


Conclusion: there is no such thing as attractive gravity. The surface of the water cannot stay curved, due to attractive gravity. Since there is no attractive gravity, the only other option is a pressure type of gravity, and then the shape of the earth must be different, in fact it must be flat (the pressure gravity required to keep the oceans/seas in place would crush anything else to the ground).
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 02:23:46 AM by levee »

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #149 on: September 29, 2011, 03:13:49 AM »

Ánd here is a table with what can be expected in this looming phenomenon:



That chart shows how far one can see due to the curvature of the earth, it has NOTHING TO DO with atmosphere or refraction.
 
Plug the same figures into this calculator, which uses ONLY the curvature of the earth (curvature as would be evident if the earth is the size that science calculates it to be).  You will see the chart is only talking about line of sight due to curvature.

Here is a quote from the page where you found the chart:
Quote
The chart above, copied from Radka's Electric Mirror, from its collection of hundreds of illustrations and photographs, indicates the distance an object may be seen at a certain height of both observer and object like a lighthouse beacon—at sea.  Obviously, no consideration is given here of any effects of weather or outstanding type of light refraction—called "looming."


First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "