Poll

What is the correct distance from the earth to the moon  and the size of the moon ?

Flat Earth Measurements Of (Exact ?) 15 KM Distance /  600 M Diameter of the moon
Round Earth Measurements By  Ham Radio (approximately ? ) 237, 150 Miles Distance / 2,150 Mile Diameter of the moon
Some Other Measurements Such As The FE 3000 Mile  Distance / 30 Mile Diameter of the moon

Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.

  • 549 Replies
  • 99530 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
It depends on where the photographs of the airplane and Sun were taken, you are generalizing too much.

I asked to you to COMPARE the Mercury transit with the ISS/Atlantis transits: SAME distance Mercury-Sun, ISS-Sun, and the same diameter. Pretty obvious.

Watch the slow motion video: Atlantis right next to the Sun, no 149,000,000 (- 400 km, of course) km between the two.

Take a look at the photographs of the Black Sun in Antarctica: just some 600 meters in diameter.

Calculations using the visual diameter must take into account the presence of ether waves right next to the Schumann cavity: that is why it is much better to compare the actual size of the ISS/Atlantis during transit, to that of the diameter of the Sun.

By the way, are going to tell us that in this photograph the "Moon" has 3,400 km in diameter?



I hope not.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 11:04:41 AM by sandokhan »

?

JP

  • 26
Ok 15km high sun... where is that number coming from? Maybe I missed something.

So let's - for now - ignore the fact that the 15km mark was broken in 1936. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record) We'll also forget all the new records after that. With that behind us...

I'm assuming you've been on a plane. Cruising altitude is typically 30,000 feet or more. That's 9.1km. If the sun were only 15km above earth, this would put you 6 km away (2.5 times as close to the sun). Why, then, doesn't the sun look significantly bigger when you're in a plane? How is this explained in FE theory?

With the sun at 149,600,000 km, the 9.1km closer is negligible (the same relationship .004 inches has to a mile, if my math is correct). This easily explains why the sun looks the same size when viewed from the ground and a plane, does it not?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
It depends on where the photographs of the airplane and Sun were taken, you are generalizing too much.

I asked to you to COMPARE the Mercury transit with the ISS/Atlantis transits: SAME distance Mercury-Sun, ISS-Sun, and the same diameter. Pretty obvious.

Watch the slow motion video: Atlantis right next to the Sun, no 149,000,000 (- 400 km, of course) km between the two.

Take a look at the photographs of the Black Sun in Antarctica: just some 600 meters in diameter.

Calculations using the visual diameter must take into account the presence of ether waves right next to the Schumann cavity: that is why it is much better to compare the actual size of the ISS/Atlantis during transit, to that of the diameter of the Sun.

By the way, are going to tell us that in this photograph the "Moon" has 3,400 km in diameter?

<pointless repetition of the "black sun" image removed for sanity's sake>

I hope not.

OK, think I got my second wind here.

I'm going to say there is no way to measure the diameter of the Moon in that picture without making some assumptions or adding some other data. So what assumption and/or data are you using to get 600m? Same goes for the ISS and shuttle videos.

Why would you need to take any ether waves into account for the Sun's angular diameter? What's wrong with the basic trig? Are you suggesting some kind of bendy light here? Whatever it is, if you need to take it into account, that's fine, just show us how it's calculated.

« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 12:24:59 PM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
Here is why:



Perhaps just a few km of a difference between the altitude of the airplane and the ISS/Atlantis orbiting altitude...an extraordinary photograph.



Please read again on how official science measures altitude, and you will change your mind about the flight records.


No bendy light, not ever.

We can easily discern the diameter of the Sun in the ISS/Atlantis transit videos, especially the slow transit: given the ISS has a diameter of some 50 meters, the Sun has a diameter of some 600 meters. Since you are so fond of precise measurements, you might inform us where the 149,000,000 km have disappeared in the following video:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#ws]International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun


Now, with that 600 meter figure in perspective, we go to the Antarctica photograph: same height.

Both the transit videos and the Antarctica photographs give us a possibility to estimate, for the first time, the real size of the Moon and the Sun.


While you ponder this, read the Tunguksa file again, then you will understand that everything we have been told about the universe, from an astronomical point of view, is completely wrong.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 12:46:28 PM by sandokhan »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38001
Sandokahn, perhaps this short instructional video will help you out with some of the confusion that you seem to be experiencing:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 01:00:30 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

JP

  • 26
Here is why:



Perhaps just a few km of a difference between the altitude of the airplane and the ISS/Atlantis orbiting altitude...an extraordinary photograph.

Have you ever been in a plane? If that picture was as you describe it (a plane only a few km away from a 600km sun), then why is the sun so small when looking out of the plane window? I've been on a plane several dozen times, and I can assure you that my view of the sun from a plane window has never been any different than what it looks like from the ground.

I'll agree that the photos and videos you posted are all very cool to look at. However, they offer nothing in terms of measurement, because there is no scale. You need two points on a line to plot the line, but the photos only offer one. There are three measurements we're looking at in these pictures, we'll call them X, Y, and Z:

1) X = The size of the object in front of the sun (plane, shuttle, ISS)
2) Y = The size of the Sun
3) Z = The distance between the object and the Sun

We know X for all the pictures. We're trying to solve for Y. In order to do that, we would need Z. However, we don't have Z, so any claims to Y have to be assumed, as Z is completely assumed.

Seeing a silhouette of a space shuttle in front of the Sun does no more to determine its size than when I cover up the Sun with my thumb.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
The best instruction that you need is to read the Faint Young Paradox, perhaps then you will understand your utter ignorance displayed here, for the upteenth time.

No bullshit argument can save the RE: there are no 149,000,000 km in the transit videos no matter what you might say.

Here is the truth about the world we live in, Atlantis/ISS right in front of the Sun:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun


jp, you've tried your best...it doesn't work, you are embarrasing yourself.

You ponder...

then why is the sun so small when looking out of the plane window? I've been on a plane several dozen times, and I can assure you that my view of the sun from a plane window has never been any different than what it looks like from the ground.

It depends on the altitude, distance from the Sun...in the photographs I provided everything looks very well.

It doesn't work like that my friend: we KNOW THE SUPPOSED DISTANCE OF THE OFFICIAL THEORY.

THE OFFICIAL DISTANCE IS SOME 148,999,600 KM BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE ISS/ATLANTIS.

Have you lost your mind to come here and tell us that in the above videos there are 148,999,600 km in-between?

The ISS/Atlantis orbiting right IN FRONT THE VISIBLE SUN, no 148,999,600 km distance, no 1,4 million km diameter for the Sun.


?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
The best instruction that you need is to read the Faint Young Paradox, perhaps then you will understand your utter ignorance displayed here, for the upteenth time.


Let's deal with one bad argument at a time, OK?


No bullshit argument can save the RE: there are no 149,000,000 km in the transit videos no matter what you might say.


I'm not even trying to argue what the true distance to the sun is. I just want you to explain precisely how you get your 600 m figure and show your work.

Here is the truth about the world we live in, Atlantis/ISS right in front of the Sun:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun


Posting these yet again is not helping you. It's getting a little sad.

jp, you've tried your best...it doesn't work, you are embarrasing yourself.

You ponder...

then why is the sun so small when looking out of the plane window? I've been on a plane several dozen times, and I can assure you that my view of the sun from a plane window has never been any different than what it looks like from the ground.

It depends on the altitude, distance from the Sun...in the photographs I provided everything looks very well.

It doesn't work like that my friend: we KNOW THE SUPPOSED DISTANCE OF THE OFFICIAL THEORY.

THE OFFICIAL DISTANCE IS SOME 148,999,600 KM BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE ISS/ATLANTIS.

Have you lost your mind to come here and tell us that in the above videos there are 148,999,600 km in-between?

The ISS/Atlantis orbiting right IN FRONT THE VISIBLE SUN, no 148,999,600 km distance, no 1,4 million km diameter for the Sun.

I would really like to know how you think this would look different than what we see in the video if those large distances were correct.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 02:11:37 PM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
Everything comes down to this: the official Sun-Earth distance is 149,000,000 km.

Photographs taken by Thierry Legault, a photographer just as famous as Fred Bruenjes.





The dot underneath the Atlantis is the Hubble Telescope.

Again, a confirmation of the transit videos:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun


Official distance Earth-Moon: 384,000 km.



Again, SAME DISTANCE as in the Solar transit videos.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">International Space Station (ISS) crosses the moon


Now, take a look at the entire set of photographs taken in Antarctica: this is what the REAL world looks like.

You can either begin to question the official figures or go back to the fantasy world created by NASA.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 4965
  • What's supposed to go here?
You still haven't explained how those prove anything as to the distances to the sun or moon.   Please explain how those photos show a 15 km distance.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Everything comes down to this: the official Sun-Earth distance is 149,000,000 km.

Photographs taken by Thierry Legault, a photographer just as famous as Fred Bruenjes.

<pointless image>

<pointless image>

The dot underneath the Atlantis is the Hubble Telescope.

Again, a confirmation of the transit videos:

<pointless video>

<pointless video>


Official distance Earth-Moon: 384,000 km.

<pointless image>

Again, SAME DISTANCE as in the Solar transit videos.

<pointless video>


Now, take a look at the entire set of photographs taken in Antarctica: this is what the REAL world looks like.

You can either begin to question the official figures or go back to the fantasy world created by NASA.

Oh my GOD Sandokhan, you are right! How could I have not seen this before! There is no way the Sun and Moon are that far away because of those images and videos you posted AGAIN!  ::)

I think this shows quite clearly that you have no idea what you're talking about, since, once again, you fail to provide any calculation of the distances and sizes that you claim. I am NOT trying to argue for the accepted distances and sizes (although they HAVE been confirmed countless times using multiple methods).

I'll take NASA's "fantasy" over your fantasy, I guess. You're not even making an argument anymore.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

JP

  • 26
The best instruction that you need is to read the Faint Young Paradox, perhaps then you will understand your utter ignorance displayed here, for the upteenth time.

I'm clearly missing something. What does that have to do with the distance between the sun and the Earth. I'll admit I don't know much about the faint young sun paradox, so if you want to explain how it's related, then I'd love to hear it.

Quote
No bullshit argument can save the RE: there are no 149,000,000 km in the transit videos no matter what you might say.

I didn't say the videos showed 149,600,000 km. What I said was that they show NOTHING about the distance between us and the Sun. If you'll look at the last part of my previous post, you'll see where I mention the three variable we're looking at - X, Y, and Z. Since all we have from those photos and videos is X, there is no possible way the videos can solve the distance problem.

So once again, how are you using those videos and photos to conclude a 15km distance and 600km diameter? The only mathematical way possible is by assuming values for Y or Z.

Quote
You ponder...

then why is the sun so small when looking out of the plane window? I've been on a plane several dozen times, and I can assure you that my view of the sun from a plane window has never been any different than what it looks like from the ground.

It depends on the altitude, distance from the Sun...in the photographs I provided everything looks very well.

That doesn't answer my question. I've been in planes at 30,000 feet. I've been on mountains at over 14,000 feet. I live at around 1,000 feet above sea level. Yet at all of these places, the sun looks the same size. Now, that can mean one of two things:

1) Those altitudes are lies.

Okay, let's say that's the case. What are the REAL altitudes then? Even if cruising altitude were only 10,000 feet, that would put me 3 kilometers closer to the sun, which is a pretty significant difference when the total distance is only 15 km.

or

2) The sun is more than 15km away.

I'm not even saying that it's 149,600,000km away, for the purpose of this experiment. But it would have to be significantly farther than 15km in order for it to remain the same size no matter where the viewing point is.

----

Now, I fear this may be posing too many questions in one post, because I have a feeling you're going to skip most of them, but I have one more for you:

Without using those pictures and videos, where do you come up with the 15km number? A link to someone else's math will be fine if you don't feel like going over it yourself. I'm genuinely curious to see how you figure this.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
Sunset, full moon:



Sunrise:



Everest summit sunset:



(and remember the official estimates of summits rest on barometer readings, and triangulation methods, therefore a lower height is expected if we take into account the ether waves)

I am basing my 15 km estimate on the original altitude reached by the Explorer back in 1958, I do not have the link to the original work unfortunately, I will try to recover it: it says there the Explorer could not ascend beyond some 13 km because of the intense radiation.


You cannot claim the Sun looks the same (exactly the same) everywhere you went...

You are trying to turn the tables around, and it doesn't work with me.

The videos and photographs clearly contradict the official 149,000,000 km distance Earth-Sun, and the 384,000 km Earth-Moon distance.

The shuttle is passing RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SUN, to say otherwise invites derision.

Moreover, using the diameter of the ISS/Atlantis just passing in front the Sun, we can estimate the 600 meters or so for the Sun's diameter.

We can check this figure out in the Antarctica photos, everything works out fine.








*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
You cannot take Nasa over ANYTHING else, not given the results of the DePalma experiment.

Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, no Nasa mission could ever have taken place as described.


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38001
You cannot take Nasa over ANYTHING else, not given the results of the DePalma experiment.

Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, no Nasa mission could ever have taken place as described.

And yet you keep posting pictures of the space shuttle, the ISS and Hubble Space Telescope as evidence of the true size and distance of the sun and moon.  Why would you do that if NASA missions are so unreliable?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 4965
  • What's supposed to go here?
Here is some fun math.  Speed of light is roughly 300,000 km/sec at the surface of the Earth.  The moon is 15km above the Earth.  The aether distortion starts to play a big part at roughly 12km (as you mentioned earlier).  It takes a radio signal 2.55 seconds to hit the moon and bounce back as was stated at the very beginning of this thread.

12km / 300,000 km/sec = 0.00004 seconds

Subtract this 2 times from 2.55 seconds (for both initial and return trip) 2.55-0.00008= 2.54992 seconds.  This is the amount of time it takes the signal to go 6km (again, both initial and return trips).

6km/2.54992s=2.35 km/s

This is very rough as I'm sure the aether would change in consistency as you gain altitude.  But this aether would need to have an absurdly high refractive index, 127,659.8 to be more exact from my calculations.  The highest known refractive index of any natural material is about 4, Germanium.  Light coming in from nearly every angle would be near vertical if this were the case.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Hi Googleotomy, glad you're sticking around. Have you met Sandokhan? He is truly a delight.

He was about to explain how he knows the Sun and Moon (or should I say Black Sun!) are 600 m diskoids 15 km away, yet still only span .5 degrees in the sky, even when you are only a third the distance away from them, like when you are on a commercial airplane. Either that or he may post some more pictures first!
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
markjo, you have really lost your touch.

All Nasa missions described by you do not use in any way, shape or form attractive gravity.

Given the extraordinary results of the DePalma, Nipher, Brown, Moray experiments indeed they could not.

All Nasa missions (ISS, Atlantis...), as do all satellites, use Nikola Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device, which utilizes the laevorotatory ether waves to supply energy.

This is how everybody is fooled to believe in these unmanned missions.


gg, you have already embarrassed yourself beyond recognition:

You have been shown that the original Maxwell equations are placed in a context where the speed of light becomes VARIABLE.

Einstein and yourself used/uses only the Hertzian wave-based estimates and relativist theories in which the speed of light is a constant.

This is completely wrong.

You wrote: The photographs are in no way a method of determining the diameter of the sun unless you know what kind of photographic equipment was used, such as the magnifying power of the telescopic lens which was obviously used in the photographs and the distance to the sun and the objects.

But they are a very precise way of determining distances, WHEN THE OFFICIAL EARTH-SUN DISTANCE IS 149,000,000 KM AND THE ISS/ATLANTIS IS LOCATED RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SUN.

You should change the wording in your quote: Radio waves are no way a method of determining distances on an astronomical basis, given the full set of Maxwell equations.


dd, take a look at one of the most famous experiments of the 19th century (1871), G.B. Airy's aether experiment, to see that this layer of aether does indeed have a very high refractive index at the very edge, but this index is variable; if we had the exact variability available, everything would become clear to you.

If you still are not convinced, please read again the DePalma and Nipher experiments: there is no such thing as Newton's law of universal attractive gravitation.


Full moon on Everest:











Bursa, Turkey, solstice, equinox photograph:



The picture is a composite of hourly images taken of the Sun above Bursa, Turkey on key days from solstice to equinox to solstice. The bottom Sun band was taken during the winter solstice in 2007 December, when the Sun could not rise very high in the sky nor stay above the horizon very long. This lack of Sun caused winter. The top Sun band was taken during the summer solstice in 2008 June, when the Sun rose highest in the sky and stayed above the horizon for more than 12 hours. This abundance of Sun caused summer. The middle band was taken during the Vernal Equinox in 2008 March, but it is the same sun band that Earthlings saw yesterday, the day of the Autumnal Equinox.

It matches exactly the diagram I posted in the alternative FE theory.


Again, read the details about DePalma's experiment: the spinning ball weighs less, for the same mass, and the supposed law of universal attractive gravitation which is the cornerstone of your whimsical beliefs.

It debunks immediately all claims made by Nasa, about its missions.

It shows the correctness of the alternative FE model.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 08:57:05 PM by sandokhan »

?

JP

  • 26
Alright, let's try to keep this simple. Please explain the 15km and 600km figures WITHOUT using pictures. Use math and show us how this works.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 4965
  • What's supposed to go here?
Again, DePalma's doesn't make a claim that it debunks gravity.  He states that it has changed the knowledge of Newton's equations to show that they are specific circumstances equations, i.e. they only work on non-spinning objects.  The vast majority of objects on the Earth are not spinning with such rotation in relation to the Earth, so the equations work in most everyday situations (imagine that).  The spinning ball is a circumstance of matter being subjected to extreme conditions, and many odd things happen to the laws of physics under extreme conditions.  These lead to the equations being tinkered with to be able to explain the observations.

I'm assuming that by your repeated use of the phrase "right in front of" in reference to the ISS/Atlantis you are meaning that they are relatively close to them and the picture somehow shows that they must in fact be very close to them.  I still do not see HOW the pictures show that they HAVE to be RIGHT IN FRONT of the Sun or moon.  How is it that the pictures cannot be showing them passing in front of a distant Sun or moon?

As far as the moon pictures go, are these full moons taken from the same event at different elevations?  It is a common phenomena for the moon to vary in size between some full moons.  These are referred to as Super Moons, caused by the elliptical orbit of the moon and it being closer during these full moons than at other times of the year.  I know you don't believe that but that's just how it is. 

Do you have evidence that Tesla's cosmic ray device powers all NASA missions and that they are unmanned?  The ISS videos would be very tough to fake due to their extensive lengths of uncut shots.

I did look at Airy's experiment, and surprise, another null result.  There sure are a lot of null results from people apparently making mistakes in their method or mistakes in the understanding of the workings of natural observations.

The picture of the suns is exactly what would be expected in a RE, what of it?

How is the sun able to transit in 24 hours in an aether that restricts the movement of light to under 1% of its value?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
jp, if we had an exact refractive index for each layer of aether and ether waves, then of course, we could attempt to use math to reach a reasonable approximation; in the absence of such an index, our best shot is to use the transit videos and Bruenjes' photos in Antarctica.


For the third time let us go back to the DePalma experiment.

The spinning ball was performed in a vacuum eliminating the "extreme" conditions.

Do you understand where you are and what we are discussing here?

The effect of Maxwell's scalar waves component which completely contradict both Newtonian Mechanics and Einstein’s Relativity -- have been confirmed in a series of remarkable laboratory experiments carried out over 30 years ago by Dr. Bruce DePalma.
 
The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.

An object at rest, the nonspinning case, is subject ONLY to dextrorotatory ether waves (which cause inertia) - a spinning object (ball) will additionally attract the other type of ether wave, the laevorotatory wave which provides the antigravitational effect.

As DePalma noted -- this completely violates the “normal” rules of all the physics we’ve been taught! It debunks attractive gravity!

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.

It is the end for the universal law of attractive gravity as it is being taught in universities.

The spinning ball DEFIES the law of universal attraction: FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF GRAVITATION, THIS SPINNING BALL ACTUALLY WEIGHED LESS, AND TRAVELLED HIGHER.

It shows immediately that Nasa has faked all and any of its missions.

All major powers copied Tesla's technology as best they could, they incorporated his cosmic ray device in the satellite/space shuttle technology: it is the only power supply which could provide 24 hour/day energy for a continuous orbit. ISS/Atlantis missions are unmanned and use Tesla's ether wave convertor to have a high supply of energy to continue orbiting above the earth.


I still do not see HOW the pictures show that they HAVE to be RIGHT IN FRONT of the Sun or moon.

This is exactly how:

Since you are so fond of precise measurements, you might inform us where the 149,000,000 km have disappeared in the following video:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#ws (Embedding disabled, limit reached)]International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun

http://www.twanslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shuttle.jpg

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2009/05/atlantis_hst_2009may13crop.jpg


Full moon size is irrelevant to the photographs: they show that the estimate of some 15 km is correct. It is the orbiting altitude that matters.

The picture of sun (solstice, equinox) is a confirmation of the sun model in the alternative FE theory. RE model of the sun is nonexistent: the faint young sun paradox DESTROYS any RE theories about the origin and age of the sun. Read also the demonstration of the impossibility of a spherical shape for the sun.


You have not done your homework regarding the Airy experiment.

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

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


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

More details here: http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm

Here is the historical figure known as I. Newton confirming all of this for you:

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Imagine the refractive index of such a flow of aether.


It is the high density of this aether which can be found BEYOND the Schumann cavity which provides the rotational gravitational force to keep in orbit the sun, moon, stars, planets.

Read Newton's quotes: he understood that there are TWO gravitational forces at work.

One of them is the terrestrial gravity, a force of pressure exerted by the ether waves.

The other one is of a rotational type.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 10:19:42 PM by sandokhan »

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 4965
  • What's supposed to go here?
I'm done asking the same questions and getting the same response in the form of videos and pictures that cannot tell the distance to the sun or moon.  As was pointed out before, in order to make an accurate estimate of the distance, you must know the size of the ISS, distance to the ISS and the size of the sun.  To know the size of the sun, you would instead need the distance to it.  You can't assume one and use it to find the other then use that value to prove the original assumption.  I highly recommend you publish your work for the world to see that we have in fact been duped all along and that we are a mere 15 km away from a small flat disk that lightshalf of our flat disk planet at a time.  You haven't convinced me, just frustated me to no end with avoiding the HOW of the pictures.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Hi
The picture of Fred Bruenjes ( who is just an amateur photograph ) has been shot with a 100-400 telephoto lens @400mm using a Canon  D60 body (1.6 crop factor). 400mm is a big focal.
The picture shows exactly the expected behaviour, and cannot be used by any means to give a relative or absolute distance of the sun.

Here is a basic explanation of the  telephoto lens perspective compression.

http://www.learnmyshot.com/Telephoto-Lens-Perspective-Compression-and-the-Angle-of-View

You should note:
Quote
background appears closer to the subject when you increase the focal length of the lens

Here is also a wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29

Here you have another example of relative size distortion:


from http://www.scottbideauphotography.com/myths-about-lens-compression/


The pictures of the iss/atlantis/planes in front of the sun have been shot with massive focal lenses, giving massive perspective compression.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
antonio, you are using the word massive too many times...no amount of perspective compression will MAGICALLY change a distance of 384,000 km into just a few hundred km, it won't happen.

To resort to wikipedia articles is a sign of delusion...here are the words of a Scott Bideau himself:

Let me first clarify that lens compression doesn’t technically exist. There is no magic in a lens that changes physics and compresses a scene.

Here is a photograph shot with lenses of drastically different lengths, it won't change anything (17mm vs. 180mm):



No magic can compress a scene.



There are no 384,000 km in this photograph, it is as simple as that.


In the following videos and photographs there no 149,000,000 km between the ISS and the Sun: for the RE to resort to magical compression is a sign of weakness.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun



http://www.twanslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shuttle.jpg

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2009/05/atlantis_hst_2009may13crop.jpg


About Fred Bruenjes, it is clear you haven't done your homework at all:

On the 35 acre ICSTARS Astronomy Ranch, Fred converted his lifelong hobby of astronomy into a business. He founded Moonglow Technologies, an electronics firm dedicated to developing cutting edge astronomical products for the professional and amateur community. The Moonglow Technologies All Sky Cam now has installations on six continents and is a popular accessory for astro imagers and professional users alike. Moonglow also designs and manufactures components and test equipment for DayStar Filters' solar filters, which are used at professional solar observatories around the world. His work has been critical in projects such as the DayStar installation on the GONG global network of solar observatories, as well as space flown components scheduled for launch in 2012.

As an accomplished astrophotographer, Fred's images have been published by Astronomy Magazine, Sky & Telescope, National Geographic News, Hoshi Navi, Disney, APOD, Reuters, and many others. Particularly famous photos include his image of an eclipse chaser silhouetting the 2003 total solar eclipse in Antarctica. His images and video of the Space Shuttle Columbia's destruction in 2003 aided NASA's investigation into the cause of the disaster.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
Now, to finally convince all of you that everything I have been writing about is true, I am going to bring to the discussion the full power of the new radical chronology arguments.

Here is the complete demonstration that before 1700 AD the Earth could not possibly have orbited the Sun. Therefore in a geocentric system, the Sun is much smaller than the Earth.

GREGORIAN CALENDAR REFORM HOAX

A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD:

Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:


“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Book’s 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.

G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.

However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.


Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).


The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.


It is the end of all the RE delusions: no astronomical records of any axial precession, therefore the Earth has never orbited the Sun.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 11:47:15 PM by sandokhan »

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
This is a beautiful image, very nicely showing the even spacings between the sun's positions each hour. On a flat earth, those spacings would be more radially spaced (if that makes sense?) What I mean is, instead of looking like they've been spaced out with a ruler, as they do, they would look more like they had been spaced using the spokes of a bicycle wheel. You do need to take the fish eye lens effect into account of course, it is blatantly obvious that that is what has been used.



Thank you Sandokhan for providing evidence supporting round earth theory!
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 4965
  • What's supposed to go here?
Leave the altered history stuff out of here.  It is not relevant to figuring up the size and distance to any heavenly body.

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2011-02/msg00107.html

I saw no mention of a vacuum being used in DePalma's experiment.  So it would follow suit that air resistance would play a role.  This resistance is reduced by rotation.  But I'm sure you already know about this post on the net and have sufficiently found it flawed do to not considering the existence of aether.

Still posting the same videos without providing any information about why the must be very close to each other for the video to appear as it does.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
Please keep low level posting and trolling out of this thread.

You are using a non sequitur type of argument: where did you learn that spacings would be more radially spaced? Not from my alternative FE theory.

Do your homework before posting.

On the contrary it is beautiful confirmation of the FE theory:



Now, to return to the GREGORIAN CALENDAR REFORM HOAX.

The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.


It is the end of all the RE delusions: no astronomical records of any axial precession, therefore the Earth has never orbited the Sun.

nonscientificmethod, there is no such thing as axial precession, the Earth has never orbited the Sun.

I cannot leave the AXIAL PRECESSION OUT OF IT.

dd, you are going to have to explain HOW is it possible that there are no astronomical records of any axial precession of the Earth.

SO FAR, YOU HAVE DEMANDED TO HAVE ANSWERS TO EACH AND EVERY ARGUMENT.

Now it is your turn to explain this anomaly.

Without axial precession, you do not have a proof that the Earth ever orbited the sun in the past.

If you cannot explain how this is possible: NO AXIAL PRECESSION IN THE PAST, it is all over for you, and your arguments.

I have already provided the link to the DePalma experiment: it was performed both in vacuum and without a vacuum.

http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/95-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-01-the-breakthroughs-of-dr-na-kozyrev

Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

Your link explains nothing.

The effect of Maxwell's scalar waves component which completely contradict both Newtonian Mechanics and Einstein’s Relativity -- have been confirmed in a series of remarkable laboratory experiments carried out over 30 years ago by Dr. Bruce DePalma.
 
The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.

An object at rest, the nonspinning case, is subject ONLY to dextrorotatory ether waves (which cause inertia) - a spinning object (ball) will additionally attract the other type of ether wave, the laevorotatory wave which provides the antigravitational effect.

As DePalma noted -- this completely violates the “normal” rules of all the physics we’ve been taught! It debunks attractive gravity!

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.

It is the end for the universal law of attractive gravity as it is being taught in universities.

The spinning ball DEFIES the law of universal attraction: FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF GRAVITATION, THIS SPINNING BALL ACTUALLY WEIGHED LESS, AND TRAVELLED HIGHER.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 12:14:43 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4307
The existence of the axial precession is ABSOLUTELY SIGNIFICANT to the shape of the Sun.

NO axial precession means the Earth never orbited the Sun in the past.

In a geocentric system, the Sun is much smaller than the Earth itself, thus providing a solid proof for everything I have presented.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 4965
  • What's supposed to go here?
Also of notice in the Atlantis photo, the shuttle is 37 meters long.  This means that it would take between 15 and 20 shuttles to span the Sun directly on its surface.  Given the shuttle is really as much as 3 km away instead it should take slightly fewer to span across the Sun since the shuttle is closer.  Given those rough estimates, lets be generous and knock off only 1 for the difference, do you think itwould only take between 14 and 19 shuttles to cross the Sun in that photo?

You say I like precise measurements and yet I'm surprised that you aren't and haven't provided precise measurements.

As far as you demanding answers from me on that, I have made no such claim about the subject and owe you no answer.  You have made claims however and should be held accountable to your claims and be able to support them.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.