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
  • 132842 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6754
Your measurements come from a dream, no 3 km distance (Atlantis-Sun). You are making up things as you go along.

I am making the ABSOLUTE CLAIM that the Earth never orbited the Sun in the past.

I can immediately prove that there was no axial precession in the past, and this starting with 1700 AD.

No axial precession means an end to the heliocentrical delusions.

No axial precession means that the Sun orbits the Earth, and in a geocentric system, the Sun is much smaller than the Earth.


How can you ignore this most important issue? You say that the Earth is orbiting the Sun: since there are no historical/astronomical records of such a pheomenon, your statement is false.

Here are the complete details of the GREGORIAN CALENDAR REFORM HOAX:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490547.html#msg1490547

NO axial precession = the Earth never orbited the Sun in the past = a geocentric system = the Sun is much smaller than the Earth.

The most precise argument, taking into consideration the chronology of history as we have been taught.

If you cannot provide an answer, it means you have no idea about the implications of the axial precession movement, it means you are believing in a phantasy, with no connections to the real world.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 12:29:37 AM by sandokhan »

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
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.

I think anyone with intelligence can work out why there would be a difference in spacings. It has to do with the difference between a sun circling over a flat earth (the only way to always have half the earth's surface lit at any one time), and a rotating round earth. It's a pretty substantial difference, and would be obvious in that photo.

Incidentally, there's no way this could work for a flat earth:



I really don't know why you posted it.
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
  • 5331
  • What's supposed to go here?
I am in fact making no claim here as to whether the Earth orbits the Sun or not.  Do not put words in my mouth.  And do not derail away from the distance issues.  If you want to discuss something else, make another thread about it.

Earlier you had stated the ISS was between 12 and 14 km if I'm not mistaken.  This is where I get that number.  Even if it is only 1 km difference, you would still need between 15 and 20 to span the Sun.  And yet this still makes no claim to the size without the distance to the Sun and no claim to the distance without the size. 
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 01:12:23 AM by DuckDodgers »
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5331
  • What's supposed to go here?
I've searched through multiple references to DePalma's experiment and I must amend my previous statements.  He is in fact saying what you have been saying.  However, I have not found referenced his methodology or any publishing of his results.  Just his own analysis of the results.  No reference to it being performed in a vacuum so it must be assumed it was performed under standard conditions.  Furthermore, since his methodology was not documented, we cannot repeat his experiment, let alone know that it was actually carried out.

Upon further review of this case it is looking even weaker as evidence of anything.  Without peer reviewed data and detailed methodology, it cannot be determined if the findings are valid.

There goes an argument against gravity.
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
  • 6754
The most significant aspect of the ISS/Atlantis transit videos is this: there are no 149,000,000 km between the space shuttle and the Sun, and no 384,000 km between the shuttle and the moon. The sun could not possibly have 1,4 million km in diameter.

The most significant aspect of the Antarctica photographs is this: there are no 384,000 km between the photographer and the moon (black sun, of course), this moon does not have 3,400 km for its diameter.


So what it comes down to is to dismiss the experiment altogether, is that it?

At the time of the experiment DePalma was lecturing part-time at MIT.

The turning point in DePalma’s scientific career came while he was a lecturer at M.I.T., in the late 1960's when he began pondering the inadequacies of physical explanations regarding the gyroscope. Were there deeper principles operating in the behavior of rotating objects?
One of the first experiments he did was designed to detect if there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object verses non-rotating object. The idea was actually initiated by a student of DePalma’s and after an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.

At this time DePalma was a senior scientist specializing in photographic sciences with the Polaroid Land Corporation and lecturing part time at M.I.T. His expertise ranged from highspeed stroboscopic photography, his mentor was the highly regarded Dr. Harold Edgerton, to Physics and Electrical Engineering. With this background he designed an experiment using two 1 inch diameter ball bearings, one not rotating and one rotating 18,000 rpm produced by a hand router. The assembly then was given a precisely measured thrust and photographed in the dark with a 60 cycle strobe light. Repeating this
numerous times, and analyzing the parallel trajectories of the ball bearings as documented
photographically, did indeed reveal a variation in the gravitational behavior of the rotating ball bearing verses the non-rotating ball bearing. The rotating ball given the same thrust, went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster, and hit the bottom of its trajectory before the non-rotating ball bearing.


The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

He did perform the experiment in full vacuum: just imagine - the first question would have been, did you do the experiment in 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.

His experiments were duplicated hundreds of times in the former Soviet Union.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".



So what you and everybody else here is saying is that your beliefs in the heliocentrical system are due to FAITH.

It should be the most important undertaking to carefully check IF in the past the Earth underwent any axial precessional movement.

I can prove immediately that, prior to 1700 AD (at least), no historical/astronomical records exist of any axial precession having taken place.

The Gregorian calendar reform is a hoax: in 1582 AD, the winter solstice MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 16, and not at all on December 11.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490547.html#msg1490547

NO axial precession = the Earth never orbited the Sun in the past = a geocentric system = the Sun is much smaller than the Earth.

The most precise argument, taking into consideration the chronology of history as we have been taught.

A complete proof of everything I have been discussing here: the sun is much smaller than the Earth.

« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 01:33:47 AM by sandokhan »

Quote
The most significant aspect of the ISS/Atlantis transit videos is this: there are no 149,000,000 km between the space shuttle and the Sun, and no 384,000 km between the shuttle and the moon. The sun could not possibly have 1,4 million km in diameter.

The most significant aspect of the Antarctica photographs is this: there are no 384,000 km between the photographer and the moon (black sun, of course), this moon does not have 3,400 km for its diameter.
Please explain how can you reach these conclusions from the pictures. Try not to go into the calendar hoax, or experiments on gravity. I want to know how, from the pictures alone, you can infer the distances involved. Thank you very much.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Quote
The most significant aspect of the ISS/Atlantis transit videos is this: there are no 149,000,000 km between the space shuttle and the Sun, and no 384,000 km between the shuttle and the moon. The sun could not possibly have 1,4 million km in diameter.

The most significant aspect of the Antarctica photographs is this: there are no 384,000 km between the photographer and the moon (black sun, of course), this moon does not have 3,400 km for its diameter.
Please explain how can you reach these conclusions from the pictures. Try not to go into the calendar hoax, or experiments on gravity. I want to know how, from the pictures alone, you can infer the distances involved. Thank you very much.

I, too, would like to know, in nice, concise terms, how distance or size can be determined from a picture, without assuming either.
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
  • 5331
  • What's supposed to go here?
Quote
The most significant aspect of the ISS/Atlantis transit videos is this: there are no 149,000,000 km between the space shuttle and the Sun, and no 384,000 km between the shuttle and the moon. The sun could not possibly have 1,4 million km in diameter.

The most significant aspect of the Antarctica photographs is this: there are no 384,000 km between the photographer and the moon (black sun, of course), this moon does not have 3,400 km for its diameter.
Please explain how can you reach these conclusions from the pictures. Try not to go into the calendar hoax, or experiments on gravity. I want to know how, from the pictures alone, you can infer the distances involved. Thank you very much.

I, too, would like to know, in nice, concise terms, how distance or size can be determined from a picture, without assuming either.

Which is precisely what I've asked at least 4 times now and have just gotten that they cannot show it because they aren't that size.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Quote
The most significant aspect of the ISS/Atlantis transit videos is this: there are no 149,000,000 km between the space shuttle and the Sun, and no 384,000 km between the shuttle and the moon. The sun could not possibly have 1,4 million km in diameter.

The most significant aspect of the Antarctica photographs is this: there are no 384,000 km between the photographer and the moon (black sun, of course), this moon does not have 3,400 km for its diameter.
Please explain how can you reach these conclusions from the pictures. Try not to go into the calendar hoax, or experiments on gravity. I want to know how, from the pictures alone, you can infer the distances involved. Thank you very much.

I, too, would like to know, in nice, concise terms, how distance or size can be determined from a picture, without assuming either.

Also, since the picture apparently so clearly proves that the sun is small and nearby, what would a large sun that's 150 million km away actually look like?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
I'm having a hard time following the logic that says the sun is just beyond the iss because "the iss passes right in front of it". I mean, by that logic, I could pass my thumb in front of the sun and say "look! The sun is smaller than the tip of my thumb, and no more than 3 feet away from me!" Yes, that's a pretty ridiculous example, but it does follow the same logic.
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."

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Sandokhan, you appear to be struggling now. You have not once explained the Earth-Moon distance in terms of your theory. All you have done is repeat the same claims, and pile on your pet conspiracy theory.

Even if it were true that there were no axial precession in the past, this doesn't help your case. It could be that it was just never documented. If there really were no precession, it means only that. You don't just get to leap straight to a geocentric model.

Same with the spinning ball. If the results are real, they could be accounted. By no means does this disprove gravity.

I can see now why you post endlessly to nobody in Flat Earth Believers. You have nothing but a fantasy story that you love to tell, nothing but unsubstantiated claims.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Puttah

  • 1860
I can see now why you post endlessly to nobody in Flat Earth Believers. You have nothing but a fantasy story that you love to tell, nothing but unsubstantiated claims.

I thought I was the only one that found that weird.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6754
gg,  you do not seem to understand where you are...not to mention what is being debated here.

The speed of light is variable, not constant: this means your equation is worthless (even more than worthless, it is disastrous).

Please take your time and study the material posted here, especially the implications of the full set of Maxwell's original equations.

Your equation applied ONLY to hertzian waves: RADIO WAVES ARE NOT HERTZIAN WAVES, BUT ETHER/SCALAR WAVES.

Your knowledge of radio waves is beyond abysmmal...you are no match for my responses. You already know very well the Earth - Sun-Moon distance: some 15 km, as I have already stated and proved very clearly.


sch...here are the full details of the DePalma experiment, full defiance of the universal law of gravitation. As for the axial precession, you do not understand the mechanics of the heliocentric system: WITHOUT AXIAL PRECESSION, THERE IS NO EARTH ORBITING THE SUN: IN A GEOCENTRIC SYSTEM, THE SUN ORBITS THE EARTH.


At the time of the experiment DePalma was lecturing part-time at MIT.

The turning point in DePalma’s scientific career came while he was a lecturer at M.I.T., in the late 1960's when he began pondering the inadequacies of physical explanations regarding the gyroscope. Were there deeper principles operating in the behavior of rotating objects?
One of the first experiments he did was designed to detect if there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object verses non-rotating object. The idea was actually initiated by a student of DePalma’s and after an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.

At this time DePalma was a senior scientist specializing in photographic sciences with the Polaroid Land Corporation and lecturing part time at M.I.T. His expertise ranged from highspeed stroboscopic photography, his mentor was the highly regarded Dr. Harold Edgerton, to Physics and Electrical Engineering. With this background he designed an experiment using two 1 inch diameter ball bearings, one not rotating and one rotating 18,000 rpm produced by a hand router. The assembly then was given a precisely measured thrust and photographed in the dark with a 60 cycle strobe light. Repeating this
numerous times, and analyzing the parallel trajectories of the ball bearings as documented
photographically, did indeed reveal a variation in the gravitational behavior of the rotating ball bearing verses the non-rotating ball bearing. The rotating ball given the same thrust, went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster, and hit the bottom of its trajectory before the non-rotating ball bearing.


The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."


He did perform the experiment in full vacuum: just imagine - the first question would have been, did you do the experiment in 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.

His experiments were duplicated hundreds of times in the former Soviet Union.

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


Please take your time to correct the full-blown delusions in your message, especially in view of the above: the DePalma experiments are very well documented they defy the law of universal gravitation to the fullest.

So far, I have been able to debunk your freshman arguments in less than five minutes.

My alternative FE has never been defeated in any way, shape or form, NO RE has been able to survive a direct debate, in fact given the delusion called the round earth theory, it doesn't even take much to debunk it.


I have already explained everything you wanted about the ISS/Atlantis transit videos/photos.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#ws

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#



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

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


Scott Bideau, professional photographer:

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):



Therefore, there is no massive compression, as per RE's description: the videos and the photos are very real, NO 149,000,000 KM between the Earth and the Sun, no 1,4 million km for the diameter of the Sun.

The ISS/Atlantis orbiting RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SUN, BOTH VIDEOS AND PHOTOS, the official claims of 149,000,000 km is debunked immediately.

Please compare the above photographs/videos with the Antarctica photos: the videos and photos debunk immediately the sheer falsity of the 149,000,000 official estimate.


What the RE should worry about most are the implications of the full set of Maxwell's equations: they prove that the earth is flat beyond a doubt.

They show that the speed of light is variable, that terrestrial gravity is caused by ether waves, and as we know, pressure gravity is a hallmark of a flat earth and not a spherical earth.

« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 06:17:00 AM by sandokhan »

I bet if we asked sandokhan his/her age or where he lives, he would answer with the exact same post, figures, videos and links. S/He doesn't appear to read what we are asking, but is in an endless loop of posting the same stuff.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6754
On the contrary, the message contains the best description of Dr. DePalma's fantastic experiment, which debunks attractive gravitation, a response which takes into account S. Bideau self-explanantory statement, and an analysis of the difference between hertzian waves and radio waves.

Do your homework, spaceman, and you will discover answers to all of your questions on astrophysics, in the full set of the Maxwell's original equations.

One recent well-known astrophysicist asked himself: ARE WE USING THE EQUATIONS RIGHT? That is, he is expressing his frustration at the complete failure of the STR/GTR to describe ANYTHING pertaining to the real world: of course the equations are NOT used right, that is, Maxwell's truncated equations, since most of the terms were deleted by both Heaviside and Lorentz.

Now, spiff, you will find the dark matter/dark energy TERMS included in the full set of Maxwell's original equations: research this topic.


The stuff about a gyroscope weighing less when it is spinning compared to at rest is interesting stuff, I believe NASA were interested at one point.
Doing a bit of a search rather than just following the links took me here

http://prl.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v64/i8/p825_1

A more recent experiment into the effect that with more sensitive equipment found no weight loss.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6754
Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev was the greatest astrophysicist of the former Soviet Union (in comparison to him, Einstein, Planck, Rutherford, Born, Bohr, are just footnotes).



Two generations of remarkable research by thousands of Ph.D. level specialists have emerged from Kozyrev’s seed findings, which completely change our understanding of the Universe.

Kozyrev’s experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr. V.V. Nasonov, who helped to standardize the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results.

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials, and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

Reported observations of gyroscope weight variations have been made repeatedly by various researchers in many countries. Almost in all cases the observed effects were interpreted as the manifestation of antigravitation. In 1989, H.Hayasaka and S.Takeuchi conducted a series of experiments in which the fall-time of a freely-falling spinning gyroscope was measured. They found that the fall-time varied depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. H.Hayasaka and S.Takeuchi have attempted to explain the effect of antigravitation as the manifestation of torsion fields generated by the spinning gyroscope.

It should be noted that reports stating that the weight of a spinning gyroscope does not change are also known. Analysis of these reports shows that experimenters have simply not fulfilled the conditions required to achieve the expected effect.


Maxwell's full set of equations, the original equations, provide the solid basis for the existence scalar/ether waves: the laevorotatory waves can be activated (electricity, sound, double torsion) to provide antigravitational effects (DePalma, T. T. Brown, Kozyrev, Moray, Tesla) - the dextrorotatory waves constitute terrestrial gravity.

The laevorotatory ether waves are the Holy Grail of physics: the missing essential part of mechanics, electromagnetism, astrophysics.

Maxwell's original equations = electrogravity = unified field theory = existence of double torsion scalar/ether waves
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 07:48:30 AM by sandokhan »

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5331
  • What's supposed to go here?
You should really publish your work so the world can see that they have been duped for so long. 
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
  • 6754
Here is how the world was duped:

Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’

One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since.



"It should be noted that reports stating that the weight of a spinning gyroscope does not change are also known. Analysis of these reports shows that experimenters have simply not fulfilled the conditions required to achieve the expected effect. "

Analysis by who? What condition?

These are serious questions because the statement above is basically "you only get these results if you do exactly as I say" and the point of replicating and modifying experiments is to try to isolate what is causing the effect and to see if the original assumption is correct. In this case the assumption is that rotation is causing the effect but when other experimentors tried minimizing vibrations and removed the electric motor and just had the spinning object the effect wasn't observed.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Sandokhan, if you ever happen to publish work for peer review, and it's rejected by the scientific community, I would assume that's definitely not because you're wrong but rather that the entire community is wrong, yes?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
You should really publish your work so the world can see that they have been duped for so long.

For a start, I would suggest that Sandokhan also write to the American Radio Relay League in Newington, Connecticut and to the Mc Donald Observatory in Fort Davis, Texas to inform them as to how they have been duped for so long.
 
Both the ARRL and Mc Donald Observatory have websites on the Internet with a "Contact Us"
for information or comments such as yours . I have written to both of them and they have answered my e-mails on  other questions . I would suggest that Sandokhan do likewise so that they will also be enlightened by his findings.

Sandokhan A copy of all your posts should be included to illustrate all of the errors you have found, especially those concerning the measurements on Amateur Radio "Moon Bounce".

I am certain they would be interested in your evaluation so that they may inform the hundreds of amateur radio operators who have performed these operations of the obvious errors they obtained-"Moon Bounce" has been going on for quite some time - ....And I am almost certain the people at Mc Donald Observatory should be interested too.

I am sure readers of this forum are also interested in how you obtained your figures for the distance from the earth to the moon , which I thought  ??? was the "OP" of this topic.

Agreed, Sandokhan should definitely contact the ARRL, if only for his own education. I looked up the EME (moonbounce), and there are a set of equations that specify how much power is needed among other things, to make it work. Not sure if they derive from Maxwell's equations or not, but it seems solid enough otherwise HAM operators would not be able to do it.

So, what do you say Sandokhan, is the ARRL part of the conspiracy or what? Seems unlikely as any HAM operator with the right equipment (100 watts doesn't seem like an excessive amount of power) can replicate the results.

Still waiting to see your calculation on the Earth Moon distance too Sandokhan, and the explanation of why the sun is only 1/4 of the size it should appear according to your numbers. Your previous comment regarding aether waves having to be taken into account does nothing unless you can show some numbers.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Here is a very good explanation of the solar eclipse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

But again, FE will probably say that wikiepedia is just another part of the Conspiracy.

Sandokhan's photos were simply telephotos or enlargements of a perfectly normal eclipse which prove absolutely nothing, in particular the distances involved, to say nothing of that mysterious "dark object" which of course is nothing but the moon itself ;D

Just waiting on how the distance was measured by FE methods.  :P ???

Yeah, it's kind of disturbing how he just posts the same photos, over, and over, and over... and claiming that they prove the Sun and Moon are close. It makes me think of some guy with a sandwich board sign over him, on the street ranting "Read this Bible passage, it PROVES spiders are really aliens!", or something like that.

And yeah, Sandokhan gives Wikipedia as much credit as Wookieepedia.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

maserati

  • 142
  • Flat Earth Supporter
Here is how the world was duped:

Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’

One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since.

Agreed, Hi man are you Leeve also?
i like your theory, and opinion.
because you are different, and also having alternative theory that i think that's correct.

In Al-Quran, and bibble also mentioned that the earth is flat, earth is static, and the sun and moon orbinting the earth.
When DOGMA is so deeply embedded, LOGIC, REALITY and FACTS are replaced by STUPIDITY, MYTH and outright LIES

?

Puttah

  • 1860
In Al-Quran, and bibble also mentioned that the earth is flat, earth is static, and the sun and moon orbinting the earth.

So both the bible and the Quran are totally wrong. Who would've guessed?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

maserati

  • 142
  • Flat Earth Supporter
In Al-Quran, and bibble also mentioned that the earth is flat, earth is static, and the sun and moon orbinting the earth.

So both the bible and the Quran are totally wrong. Who would've guessed?

No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.
When DOGMA is so deeply embedded, LOGIC, REALITY and FACTS are replaced by STUPIDITY, MYTH and outright LIES

In Al-Quran, and bibble also mentioned that the earth is flat, earth is static, and the sun and moon orbinting the earth.

So both the bible and the Quran are totally wrong. Who would've guessed?

No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.

I don't see it, so explain it to me...what do you see?
Hello!

*

maserati

  • 142
  • Flat Earth Supporter
In Al-Quran, and bibble also mentioned that the earth is flat, earth is static, and the sun and moon orbinting the earth.

So both the bible and the Quran are totally wrong. Who would've guessed?

No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.

I don't see it, so explain it to me...what do you see?

- what i see is our flat is never go round at all, i see flat
- i feel our earth is never spinning at all, out flat is statis no moving (rotation or revolution)
if earth spinning we can fly, building is fly too.
- i see the sun is orbiting the earth 24 hours a day
- our earth is like disc shape, it proven when we go to high feet in the sky by baloon and record by camera (INDEPENDENT SIDE NO NASA) we see our earth is curve, it proof that our flat is indeed curvy like disc shape and having edge also

all above fact, reinforced by Al-Quran and Bibble
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 06:04:56 AM by maserati »
When DOGMA is so deeply embedded, LOGIC, REALITY and FACTS are replaced by STUPIDITY, MYTH and outright LIES

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5331
  • What's supposed to go here?
In Al-Quran, and bibble also mentioned that the earth is flat, earth is static, and the sun and moon orbinting the earth.

So both the bible and the Quran are totally wrong. Who would've guessed?

No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.

I don't see it, so explain it to me...what do you see?

- what i see is our flat is never go round at all, i see flat
- i feel our earth is never spinning at all, out flat is statis no moving (rotation or revolution)
if earth spinning we can fly, building is fly too.
- i see the sun is orbiting the earth 24 hours a day
- our earth is like disc shape, it proven when we go to high feet in the sky by baloon and record by camera (INDEPENDENT SIDE NO NASA) we see our earth is curve, it proof that our flat is indeed curvy like disc shape and having edge also

all above fact, reinforced by Al-Quran and Bibble

What I see is the sun going below the horizon, which means the sun must at least revolve AROUND the Earth if nothing else.
Lower altitude objects disappear before higher altitude objects, which means something must be getting in the way, such as curvature.
High altitude pictures pointed horizontally show curvature, which shows a round Earth.
I never feel a pressure keeping me down, so that must not be the case.
This may shock you, but the Bible or Quran you read today may not be the same as was originally written.  Religion has a fantastic way of getting in the way of scientific advancement, especially when applied literally.  I'm not going to get into that argument though, start up a new thread if you want to discuss that.  But my Bible states the Earth was "formless" on day one, neither round nor flat.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.

Millions of Christians and Muslims don't believe the Earth is flat. They have either ignored those parts of the holy texts or took them as not being literal.

You clearly don't understand Science.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.