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
  • 102153 Views
?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
My apologies for my latest contribution to the derailment Googleotomy.

As far as I can see, the only way for a moon bounce to give an incorrect result would be for the speed of light (and thus the speed of radio waves) to be a great deal lower than the well-tested and established value of 3x108ms-1. One hundred times lower, in fact. I don't really see how that could happen, given that all that lies between us and the moon is a little bit of air, and then a whole lot of nothing.

If it happened that light "tires down", becomes slower, on its way to the moon, would we be aware of it?

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
The failure of the Michaelson-Morley experiment to demonstrate the inconstancy of the speed of light your vague objection devoid of value.

Did you know that Geocentrists apply the very same experiment to proove that earth is stationary? I wonder why FEs never do.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
If it happened that light "tires down", becomes slower, on its way to the moon, would we be aware of it?

While light has never been demonstrated to slow down over time (unless it's passing through different mediums) if it were true, scientists would have fucked up in a big way and our understanding of the Universe would be pushed back centuries. Considering the metre (and thus the Imperial system as well) is defined based on the speed of light, I'm pretty sure they're confident that it's a constant value.
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.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • Literally a dog
Anyone?

My apologies for my latest contribution to the derailment Googleotomy.

As far as I can see, the only way for a moon bounce to give an incorrect result would be for the speed of light (and thus the speed of radio waves) to be a great deal lower than the well-tested and established value of 3x108ms-1. One hundred times lower, in fact. I don't really see how that could happen, given that all that lies between us and the moon is a little bit of air, and then a whole lot of nothing.

If it happened that light "tires down", becomes slower, on its way to the moon, would we be aware of it?

If any thing I suppose someone could suppose that light speeds up once it gets free of the earth's atmosphere. (I'm not saying this is true of course , but someone [I won't mention any names.]) might "suppose" this. ;D

Let me!  Let me!

Are you saying the speed of light in the vacuum of space is precisely same as the speed of light in the medium of the atmosphere?
The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

Does that mean that there is no refraction as light leaves or arrives on the earth's surface?  I assume that means that the atmosphere is not a heavy enough medium to affect the speect of light, but logically there must be some effect, however small.
The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

2.55 seconds   (Multiplied by) 186,000 miles = 238,000 miles (approximately)
              2                                   1  second     
You're wrong.
It's obviously 3000, if you subtract 24733.72533980 from 186000, you get 11976.284. Multiply that by 2.55 seconds and you get 3000.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
2.55 seconds   (Multiplied by) 186,000 miles = 238,000 miles (approximately)
              2                                   1  second     
You're wrong.
It's obviously 3000, if you subtract 24733.72533980 from 186000, you get 11976.284. Multiply that by 2.55 seconds and you get 3000.

Ok
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
2.55 seconds   (Multiplied by) 186,000 miles = 238,000 miles (approximately)
              2                                   1  second     
You're wrong.
It's obviously 3000, if you subtract 24733.72533980 from 186000, you get 11976.284. Multiply that by 2.55 seconds and you get 3000.

OK. Where did the 24733.72533980 come from ?

I never knew something so simple could get so complicated until I discoverd the Flat Earth Society Forum Website !  ;D

He divided by sqrt(2pi).
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.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
OK

PuttahThanks for the explanation. It should have been obvious if I had bothered to work it out, but I am another one of the lazy RE's on this forum.

haha I feel bad for lying to you ;D

Notice that
if you subtract 24733.72533980 from 186000, you get 11976.284.
is not true, and that

Multiply that by 2.55 seconds and you get 3000.
is even more obviously not true.  ;)
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38449
I suppose you could say that light "tires down" , "becomes slower" on its way to the moon when it passes through the earth's atmosphere and "speeds up", "becomes faster" once it gets to the vacuum of outer space.

Well, the light does have to out run the effects of the UA on the way up, but it gets to coast on the way back.  Light is kinda lazy that way.
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.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
I suppose you could say that light "tires down" , "becomes slower" on its way to the moon when it passes through the earth's atmosphere and "speeds up", "becomes faster" once it gets to the vacuum of outer space.

Well, the light does have to out run the effects of the UA on the way up, but it gets to coast on the way back.  Light is kinda lazy that way.

Light's velocity is constant. It effortlessly outruns the UA.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Is it possible that the atmospheric bubble or whatever it really is, maybe provide a form of resistance to all wavelength energy? So if you try to measure it with anything that is wave form, maybe MaYBE it is delayed, even by a little would mean that the calculations would give vastly different numbers. I am curious as to how they came up with the moon being 3000 miles up. But one thing I am very convinved of is that the arguments for a flat earth sum up to being either true of false. Some may be true and some not. But the ones that I am impressed with mean one thing to me, either the earth is indeed flat, or the earth and all we can see and experience is in fact a hologram. If we live in a giant hologram, then the hologram of earth could be a dodecahedron or any shape for that matter and the rules that were programmed into it would apply to our reality. Even though its all a complete illusion. That is the only way that gravity and a spherical earth and the universe makes sense, either its flat and an unknown force it pushing us up at 32 dt per second forever, and/OR this is a hologram. Based on quantum physics, and especially the double slit experiment and the MRI brain scan experiment that measured how long before you make a decision and are able to move your body, your brain knows what you are going to do up to MaYBE MORE than 6 seconds BEFORE. These are only two examples of many more experiments that are proving this reality to be an illusion, a holographic universe. I am fascinated by all of this, and the more I learn the more I learn that I dont know much. But no question is stupid and everything you are told NEEDS, no, DEMANDS to be questioned. In the end we are all responsible for our ourselves. Use that power wisely. And please love each other. Anything you want to do from the heart, from love, is possible and doable and nobody has the right to tell you  that you cannot do it. Peace and much love!
JRogue :)

?

Puttah

  • 1860
If the moon was only 3,000 miles from the earth instead of 250,000 miles why wouldn't less powerful telescopes be used instead of the more powerful ones used presently ?

I'm sure the consensus around here is probably that rather than the craters being relatively large and the moon far away, the craters are actually small and the moon is closer.
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.

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
I am unqualified to answer the OP. However I can propose a couple of questions which might be of interest.

1. Is sending something to the moon (e.g. a wavelength) the best way to measure distance? What if there is something we don't understand about the intervening space, or about the thing (e.g. wavelength) we are sending?

2. Would something coming from the moon be a better source of information? For example, why can't a trigonometric evaluation of moonlight (careful to shield yourself) be used? I have read posts criticizing the trigonometry of sun distance measurements but can't it somehow be worked out? If we can put a man on the moon, can't we take angles of light? Oops, maybe that came out wrong. Some habits die hard.

Anyway I would say that just because my keys are lost doesn't mean that they are by the lamp-post. In other words, my ability to send wavelengths in a direction doesn't mean that those wavelengths are the ideal method of achieving an end.
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Why should the moon bounce your signal back right away? Could that be a problem in your experiment?
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4533

The Big Questions:
Why am I and a large number of amateur radio operators getting a distance of  an example of aproximately 238,000 miles from the earth to the moon from our observations and computations ?

If the correct distance is 3,000 miles where is /are the error / errors in our observations and computations ? That is all that I am asking. I have seen no answers as yet.


Radio waves are ether waves which travel through aether.

That is why your calculations are completely bogus.

Nikola Tesla went all the way to Germany to demonstrate to Hertz how catastrophically wrong Hertz's experiment was:

"When Dr. Heinrich Hertz undertook his experiments from 1887 to 1889 his object was to demonstrate a theory postulating a medium filling all space, called the ether, which was structureless, of inconceivable tenuity and yet solid and possessed of rigidity incomparably greater than that of the hardest steel.  He obtained certain results and the whole world acclaimed them as an experimental verification of that cherished theory.  But in reality what he observed tended to prove just its fallacy.

"I had maintained for many years before that such a medium as supposed could not exist, and that we must rather accept the view that all space is filled with a gaseous substance.  On repeating the Hertz experiments with much improved and very powerful apparatus, I satisfied myself that what he had observed was nothing else but effects of longitudinal waves in a gaseous medium, that is to say, waves, propagated by alternate compression and expansion.  He had observed waves in the ether much of the nature of sound waves in the air."


Ether drift discovered and proved by Dr. Dayton Miller:

The work done by Dr. Dayton Miller on detecting ether (telluric currents):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

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

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.


 As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein.


Now, the figure of 3000 miles for the Moon-Earth distance is also completely bogus.

Here is the heavenly body which does cause the solar eclipse; since you have no choice but to accept it is the Moon itself, you can see in a single glance how wrong the official figures are about the distance from the Moon to the Earth.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html




ANTARCTICA, BLACK SUN PHOTOGRAPHS - THE MOON DOES NOT CAUSE THE SOLAR ECLIPSE




SAME SIZE OF THE SUN/BLACK SUN AS IN THE ISS/ATLANTIS VIDEOS (see the previous message: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1385207.html#msg1385207 ): SOME 600 METERS IN DIAMETER



HERE ARE THE WORDS OF FRED BRUENJES HIMSELF:

To the doubters: this is a real image, I was really there and that's what it really looked like. Interestingly, people who have never seen a total solar eclipse think it's fake, while people who HAVE seen a total eclipse (particularly those with me in Antarctica) think I got the image exactly right!

The image was the Astronomy Picture of the Day on December 8th, 2003, and was CNN.com's Space Scene of the week starting December 17th, 2003. My website got half a million hits during December 2003.













« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 12:37:48 PM by sandokhan »

*

sokarul

  • 16121
  • Discount Chemist
Radio waves are ether waves which travel through aether.
...
No, they aren't.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5057
  • What's supposed to go here?
Hasn't the aether idea been disproven multiple times?  If I read the article correctly, Miller's experiment was largely open to the elements, involved millions of data sets, and showed a collective positive effect of the aether on a scale that would not account for the force that we feel that pulls us to the Earth?  The data variations have since been attributed to temperature variations.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sokarul

  • 16121
  • Discount Chemist
Hasn't the aether idea been disproven multiple times?  If I read the article correctly, Miller's experiment was largely open to the elements, involved millions of data sets, and showed a collective positive effect of the aether on a scale that would not account for the force that we feel that pulls us to the Earth?  The data variations have since been attributed to temperature variations.
Actually FE believer like sandokhan have to ignore alot.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4533
You haven't done your homework, and certainly no research on this subject at all.

The aether idea has never been disproven, not even once.

In his 1933 paper, Miller published the most comprehensive summary of his work, and the large quantity of data which supported his conclusions. A total of over 200,000 individual readings were made, from over 12,000 individual turns of the interferometer, undertaken at different months of the year, starting in 1902 with Edward Morley at Case School in Cleveland, and ending in 1926 with his Mt. Wilson experiments. These data do not include many rigorous control experiments undertaken at Case School Physics Department from 1922 to 1924. More than half of Miller's readings were made at Mt. Wilson using the most sophisticated and controlled procedures, with the most telling set of experiments in 1925 and 1926. By contrast, we can mention here, the original Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 involved only six hours of data collection over four days (July 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 1887), with a grand total of only 36 turns of their interferometer. Even so, as shown below, Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics.


Dayton Miller discovered, through carefully performed experiments, the existence of the telluric currents.


Einstein's Special Relativity theory demanded that the Michelson-Morley experiments must have been null!  The aether was not acceptable.  DeMeo reports (January 2001) that he has now found evidence that Einstein was more directly involved than he had thought.  Much new material has been added to his original paper, which concentrated on Shankland's 1955 report, written in consultation with Einstein.  (Shankland had been an assistant to Miller in 1932-3.)

As Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature. (Cleveland Plain Dealer January 27, 1926.)



It was evidently a power struggle between the two, the odds tipped in favour of Einstein by the media-enhanced "victory" of his General Relativity theory after the 1919 eclipse.



And now, the most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.



It is the end of this thread and the photographs taken in Antarctica destroy any RE fantasies about the alleged 284,000 km between the Moon and the Earth.


Here is the complete disproval of the attractive gravity hypothesis and one of the best proofs of the existence of telluric current which do travel through aether.

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".



In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, 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.

Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment shatters the "law" of attractive gravity.

Here are his own words:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.


Torsion physics DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

*

sokarul

  • 16121
  • Discount Chemist
You haven't done your homework, and certainly no research on this subject at all.
Your research is 80 years old. Might I suggest you get with the times. Neutron were discovered, did you hear?

Quote
The aether idea has never been disproven, not even once.
There is nothing you can post to definitively say the aether exists. Aether isn't even necessary anymore as our understanding of physics has grown.
Quote
In his 1933 paper, Miller published the most comprehensive summary of his work, and the large quantity of data which supported his conclusions. A total of over 200,000 individual readings were made, from over 12,000 individual turns of the interferometer, undertaken at different months of the year, starting in 1902 with Edward Morley at Case School in Cleveland, and ending in 1926 with his Mt. Wilson experiments. These data do not include many rigorous control experiments undertaken at Case School Physics Department from 1922 to 1924. More than half of Miller's readings were made at Mt. Wilson using the most sophisticated and controlled procedures, with the most telling set of experiments in 1925 and 1926. By contrast, we can mention here, the original Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 involved only six hours of data collection over four days (July 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 1887), with a grand total of only 36 turns of their interferometer. Even so, as shown below, Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics.
What about his 1904 paper which showed nothing? Why does he have to take so much data? He can't see what he wants? He was looking for the aether so he made it so he could find it, which was not by his experiments. There were physicists back then that wanted to find the aether, they would have excepted his work had it actually worked. It was ignored and still is ignored because his research was null.   

Quote
Dayton Miller discovered, through carefully performed experiments, the existence of the telluric currents.
Telluric currents are not aether. Don't make stuff up.

Quote
Einstein's Special Relativity theory demanded that the Michelson-Morley experiments must have been null!  The aether was not acceptable.  DeMeo reports (January 2001) that he has now found evidence that Einstein was more directly involved than he had thought.  Much new material has been added to his original paper, which concentrated on Shankland's 1955 report, written in consultation with Einstein.  (Shankland had been an assistant to Miller in 1932-3.)
Einstein wanted an aether. He wouldn't null an experiment looking for what he wanted unless the experiment didn't work.

Quote
As Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature. (Cleveland Plain Dealer January 27, 1926.)
What about it?


Quote
It was evidently a power struggle between the two, the odds tipped in favour of Einstein by the media-enhanced "victory" of his General Relativity theory after the 1919 eclipse.
Who would have guess observable evidence would help his theory? Not to mention gravitational lensing, not just redshifting, can be seen during an eclipse. You going to explain how aether bends light around the moon?


Quote
And now, the most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
Now disprove [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment], or is research from 1959 too new?
Just a reminder, science went on after Einstein.

Quote
Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.
So no one cant find it these days? They make Michelson–Morley apparatuses that sit on your desk these days. No one found the aether, give it up.


Quote
It is the end of this thread and the photographs taken in Antarctica destroy any RE fantasies about the alleged 284,000 km between the Moon and the Earth.
No, they don't. Not to mention your photos show the sun setting behind the horizon, which is impossible in the FET without making up magical optics properties.

Quote
Here is the complete disproval of the attractive gravity hypothesis and one of the best proofs of the existence of telluric current which do travel through aether.
Telluric current has nothing to do with gravity.

Quote
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".


In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, 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.

Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment shatters the "law" of attractive gravity.
Gyroscopes have already been discussed. Nothing about them breaks physics. They do seem to, but it's just a property of a spinning object.As a reminder, to spin an object, you have to add energy. To say a spinning ball and non spinning ball are the same, is incorrect.

Quote
Here are his own words:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.


Torsion physics DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.
[/quote]
Still no.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4533
The radio wave measurements are not the only measurements of the distance; just one of many methods used.

Why does this method and  all of the other methods curiously arrive at the same distance ?

What is the true ? distance in your measurements ?

What other (many) methods did you have in mind?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4533
The methods used to officially calculate distances on an astronomical scale are well known; my brief message was meant to give you a chance to come back to the discussion, for some
reason, you did not realize this.

You did mention some: laser technology, radar...and there are others: principle of parallax, the cepheid variable stars...


The new chronologist Uwe Topper brought new light upon an "ancient" method used to calculate distances, so we will start with this.

In school we learned that Eratosthenes (276-194 B.C.), director of the great library at Alexandria, was the first to determine the size of the earth. Yet his alleged method does not convince me at all.

The following procedure is described: He assumed that Alexandria and Syene (now Assuan on the Nile before the first cataract) are situated on the same meridian and are exactly 5000 stades distant from each other. The latitudinal difference is given as 7°12' which is accurate. But these towns don't lie on the same meridian - Alexandria is 30° eastern longitude and Syene is 33°. The difference of 3° amounts to more than 300 km. We don't know how Eratosthenes determined these towns are 5000 stades distant (which is close enough). From these data Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of our planet to be 252,000 stades, which is astonishingly correct. The stade used in Egypt is 157,5 m, and thus the earth's circumference 39,690 km which is fairly correct (today a bit more than 40,000). It means roundabout 110 km distance between two parallels (today 111 km).

The latitudinal difference between Alexandria and Syene, 7°12', is exactly a 50th part of the whole circumference. If this had been applied correctly in the calculation, the circumference would have come to 250,000 stades, or 2000 stades short of what Eratosthenes assumed. This suggests he knew the outcome in advance and only looked for measures that let to the right result.

My doubts are reinforced if we consider the length of the stade: 40,000 stades make the radius of the earth, and 1° of the earth's circumference equals exactly 700 stades. Thus I conclude the stade is a measure deducted from the size of the earth. If Eratosthenes applied it to measure and calculate the earth, he used the knowledge that people had used before him. And he had to twist his mathematical elaboration a bit to arrive at the same result.

(here Eratosthenes has been dealt with a long time ago, from several points of view)


The fundamental discoveries of Nikola Tesla, Dayton Miller and other great physicists show that light is variable and not constant.

In the official science, the Einstein shift is said to have been verified by the Pound-Rebka experiment.

But Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html


If we bring the existence of ether (telluric currents) and aether (medium of propagation of ether) into our discussion, then everything changes with the modern methods used to calculate distances (laser, radar and others).

Here is a work which investigates this approach:

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no113/Stellar%20parallax-aberration%20is%20geocentric.pdf


The discoveries of Dr. T. Henry Moray do prove that telluric currents = ether, here is an extraordinary work on this subject:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm


Here are some other works on geocentric stellar parallax:

http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Stellar-Parallax

http://geocentricperspective.com/Negative%20parallax.htm


Light is variable and passes/propagates/travels through a medium (aether) which can have different densities, that is why any method used to calculate distances (to the Moon, to the stars) which ignores this basic fact will lead to catastrophic results.



You did mention laser beam reflectors left by astronauts.

However, no astronauts ever reached the moon, especially the Apollo 11 crew:

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



#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage


A "reflector" is nothing else than a very small device which uses Tesla technology and orbits in front of the Moon all the time (see my Satellite Conspiracy thread).
« Last Edit: May 04, 2013, 10:49:37 AM by sandokhan »

*

sokarul

  • 16121
  • Discount Chemist
...
I'll let some one else join in if they wish.

...
I tried, he was too scared to respond. 
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4533
But I did visit the local observatory: it confirms everything I have been writing about, especially as it relates to the planet Jupiter and its satellites.

My recommendation to you is to strongly research a subject before the thought crosses your mind that, for some reason, you were apt to comment on it.

*

sokarul

  • 16121
  • Discount Chemist
But I did visit the local observatory: it confirms everything I have been writing about, especially as it relates to the planet Jupiter and its satellites.
No, it didn't.
Thousands of scientists can't keep missing the fact that the sun is only 3,000 miles away and not 92,960,000 miles. That can't happen. Just look at it logically. That difference is so big it would have been found out long ago.
Quote
My recommendation to you is to strongly research a subject before the thought crosses your mind that, for some reason, you were apt to comment on it.
I suggest you get with the times and leave the 1905 research. You only look where you want for what you want to see.  Nothing more.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Sandokhan there are a few places where you have the orthodox physics wrong:

1. The speed of light was long known to be constant and it was a major problem that came to a head in the Michaelson-Morley experiment that hoped to prove the existence of the ether. It utterly failed to show anything except what was already known. Light in a vacuum travels at a constant and relativistic speed.

2. Time dilation is not caused by gravity. Rather gravity and time dilation both arise from space time geometry.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4533
The speed of light was not known to be constant, not in 1877, not in 1905, not today.

There is no such thing as space-time geometry. Here is the step by step demonstration.

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

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

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

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


G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.




http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html

the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

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

How was this done?

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

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



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (one of the best works on the variability of light)


EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic

http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html


“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”



ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.


The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/EinsteinsRelativityScientificTheoryOrIllusion.pdf (chapters 5-10)

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)
« Last Edit: May 04, 2013, 01:52:24 PM by sandokhan »

*

sokarul

  • 16121
  • Discount Chemist
You are just looking where you want again and you are taking Tesla's opinion as facts. Yet you ignore his radio and x ray research which contradicts you earlier when you said radio waves were ether waves.

Scanning your Einstein fallacy link it claims the big bang is a fallacy.  Laughable.

Your Reason why Einstein was wrong link it so some guys theory. The guy isn't even a scientist. You should totally believe him even though he has never conducted an experiment.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER