HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

  • 3179 Replies
  • 393411 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1050 on: September 07, 2019, 05:45:26 AM »
rabinoz, take a look at what is happening to you: you are becoming a flat earth believer.

Just the other day you stated that the Sun has a solid surface.

Now, you posted this.

something holds a one-kilogram mass down with a force of one kilogram

You have to explain HOW that something holds a one kg mass.

What you did is to DESCRIBE something.

Are you able to provide the mechanism by which water stays glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

But modern does NOT claim any "attractive gravity hypothesis"

WHAT?!

Terrestrial gravity IS NOT ATTRACTIVE?

Then, by all means, tell us what it is then.

I do not "claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive"!

Congratulations, you have stated that you are a flat earth believer.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2019, 06:02:14 AM by sandokhan »

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1051 on: September 07, 2019, 06:32:09 AM »

I hope you don't mind if I answer as well though I'm sure that mak3m can do better than I.


Not at all chap.


Quote from: sandokhan
You cannot resort to general relativity: I can immediately point out how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 crucial solar eclipses data.

I am intrigued on where you would go with this.

You know how theoretical and experimental physics works right, Einstein only did one physics experiment, related to brownian motion if memory serves correct, the physics community smiled, patted him on the head and suggested he sticks to thought experiments.

Is it Einsteins maths? hes not that good of a mathematician this is quite widely known.

Is it the German physics community, cant think why early 20th century Germans would have anything against Einstein

Eddington? he was a Einstein fanboy not much doubt of that.

More interesting is how Einstein is still getting up to his old tricks on every solar eclipse since 1922

Another new thread would be more appropriate, I wouldn't want to distract you from trying to make sense of that trig formula you invented.
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1052 on: September 07, 2019, 07:56:30 AM »
Let me explain to everyone here why the RE cannot resort to general relativity to account for gravity.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

So, in order to make any sense at all out of explaining the cause of gravity, physicists have resorted to the use of gravitational waves assumed to be ripples in the fabric of spacetime.

The Hulse-Taylor experiment proved their existence and in 2016 it was announced by LIGO that they had made the first direct observation of gravitational waves.

It was ALWAYS assumed that Einstein's equations can describe these gravitational waves, that is, that Einstein's equations have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.



However, as early as 1917, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, T. Levi-Civita discovered a huge flaw in these equations: there is no bounded dynamic solution.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

A. Gullstrand, the chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also discovered in 1921 that Einstein's equations cannot be applied to DYNAMIC situations: that is why he refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

None other than Einstein himself also discovered this very fact in 1936:



https://archive.org/details/TheBornEinsteinLetters/page/n72

THAT IS, THERE ARE NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTIONS USING THE ORIGINAL EINSTEIN EQUATIONS.

Now, the best part.

Gravitational waves become possible if, and only if, an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL TERM is added to the original equations, which is exactly what Reissner and Nordstrom and Weyl did.

But this takes the wind out of round earth theory immediately.

Here is the proof that the original Einstein equations do not have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

https://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/354

See also:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825

« Last Edit: September 07, 2019, 07:58:09 AM by sandokhan »

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1053 on: September 07, 2019, 08:50:50 AM »
Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?
Again, the topic is about rockets.
Can you explain how either gas is magically trapped inside an open container, or how the gas magically accelerates without following firmly established laws of physics which demand it accelerates another objects (i.e. the rocket), or admit that rockets do work in a vacuum?

Refutation of it? Well, i am really worried about your mental health.
Worry about your own mental health. You are the one who seems to think "thrust" is a rational answer to a question asking about a second body.
Thrust is not a body.

You can't "reach" me, because I am not a moron and I realise that you are repeatedly avoiding the question.
You haven't even attempted to explain how the gas accelerates, which is the key issue.
Instead you just start with your magically accelerated gas to avoid the issue.

So again:
How does the gas accelerate? That is what you need to explain.
Again, we know the gas has mass. That means it needs a force to be applied to accelerate it.
No force, no acceleration, so you have your gas magically contained inside an open container.
So the only rational option is to have a force acting on the gas to accelerate it.
But then we also know forces come in pairs. If a force is acting on the gas then the gas must be applying a force to another object, and as we have been over, the only other object there is the rocket.
That means the rocket needs to be having a force applied as well.
But that means rockets DO work in a vacuum.

Notice how I am not discussing what happens after the gas accelerates? Instead it is that initial acceleration which is key, which you are ignoring.

So if you want to try and reach me, instead of just trolling, answer the question. How does the gas accelerate?

Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
Thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity)

NASA SAYS  :

"The physics involved in the generation of thrust is introduced in middle school and studied in some detail in high school and college. To accelerate the gas, we have to expend energy. The energy is generated as heat by the combustion of some fuel."

According to Jack, generated energy (as heat by the combustion) is the force which produces another force (thrust) which is (mass (flow (rate) * (exhaust velocity).

The first force (combustion-expansion-chemical reaction) forces one part of the second force (mass flow rate) to accelerate (which is another part of the second force).

So, we have the first force (chemical reaction) and the second force (thrust).
Now, according to Jack's logic, the second force is not the whole force, but only one part of the second force (mass (flow rate)).

In order to get the entire force (thrust) we need the first force (chemical reaction) which is going to accelerate one part of the first force (mass).

Now, according to Jack, the first force (chemical reaction) is actual-real force, and thrust is only one part of what it really is (mass (flow rate)).

This is how Jack invented something (first force) that can artificially separate thrust (which is actually just one part (mass (flow rate)) of what it really is : (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity)) from a rocket.

So, the first body is a rocket, second body is a thrust (which is actually just one part (mass (flow rate)) of what it really is : (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity), and the force is actually the first force (chemical reaction) which accelerates second body (thrust) so that we can finally get thrust in it's integrality.

This is an interesting theory (which eventually boils down to nothing more than meaningless wordplay), but it is plainly wrong, that is to say : just one among many classical examples of notorious Jack's stupidities.

Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

Jack still hasn't watched this video :

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ga9h2

No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases= thrust= mass flow rate* exhaust velocity) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..

What happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
THRUST FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

The gas cannot push the ship with the nozzle closed because gas trapped in the combustion chamber does no work but if you open the nozzle all the gas exits immediately before it can push against the ship. Therefore you cannot use gas in the vacuum to power a rocket ship.

This force pushing a rocket cannot be pushing on the inside of the rocket any more than you can push with your feet upwards against the inside of a cardboard box you are within to stop it from falling from a height. It sounds absurd but that is what NASA claims happens in a rocket.

An object sitting on the ground can only move upwards if it is pushed from underneath or lifted from the side/top. Since we know rockets are not lifted , they must be pushed. Therefore the gasses underneath the rocket must be pushing it up and off the launchpad.

An object moving straight up into the air will eventually be pulled back down by gravity unless it is continuously pushed from underneath or pulled from the top/side by a force greater than gravity.

The Expansion produces THRUST FORCE!

What law disables rockets (via expansion) from doing any useful work in a vacuum?

Free expansion!

What makes "the difference" between the Expansion and Free expansion?

Density of air/vacuum!

Why?

Resistance!

What it means?

It means that there is resistance in the air because the air is dense, hence : the air is the second body!
On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!

3. Jack, have you ever seen this :

BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSE

BULLSHIT :

An airplane propeller DOES push against the air and in so doing it DOES impart a reactive force to the plane because the prop is a solid object CONNECTED to the plane.

Rocket exhaust isn’t connected to the rocket so it can’t function as a pushing medium to the rocket as a propeller does.

Rockets move by creating an imbalance of forces within the rocket motor causing more internal pressure in the forward direction and very little internal pressure rearward due to the opening of the rocket nozzle. There is also a secondary forward thrust caused by Newton’s 3rd law as regards the rearward ejection of mass.

That is how rocket thrust works. The continued expansion of gasses caused by burning high energy fuel builds up pressure but the pressure is always lower at the rear of the rocket motor due to the open nozzle. The higher pressure in the forward part of the motor maintains an imbalance of forces so the rocket continues to move as long as fuel is burned.

In addition to the above force there is also some thrust caused by rearward ejection of mass (the exhaust) in accordance with Newton’s 3rd Law.


BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSE

COMMON SENSE :

I fear we are now arguing semantics instead of physics.

To save time, I will tell you how I interpret Newtons 3 Laws of Motion. If you disagree then there is no longer a reason to continue this thread as we differ on basic laws of physics which won’t be resolved here. If you agree with me, then there is much to discuss.

Let’s start with Newtons 3 Laws of Motion.

Fist Law: For an object to remain as it is, either moving or not, the sum of the forces on it are zero.
Sigma F = 0

Second Law: For a body to accelerate, there must be a force on it.
F = ma

Third Law: For every force in one direction, there is an equal force in the opposite direction.
F1 = – F2 or F1 + F2 = 0

Notice how all of Newtons Laws of Motion contain the term ‘force’. Newton used the term ‘force’ to explain how objects are pushed and pulled in our universe.

This is how I see Newtons 3rd Law applied to rockets flying through our atmosphere:

If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then there must be a force in the northeasterly direction also going 17,000 mph, which is the force produced by the jet engine exhaust coming out of the back of the rocket.

The way you are explaining it, is that molecules hitting inside a chamber are moving the rocket forward, AND the rocket is moving forward. You did mention the perhaps the exhaust might move it forward also somewhat, but Newtons 3rd Law says the forward motion MUST be equal to the thrust only out the back because of the ‘opposite’ direction part of the law.

You can’t have two positive forces. F1 + F2 would then be greater than zero, and that defies Newtons 3rd Law. My point is the exhaust out the back is not the minor part, it is the major part of the force. Newtons 3rd law says it has to be.


4. Jack, have you ever seen this :


So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when Pe=Pa" and find out what it means.
[/quote]



Let's try once again :

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.

2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).

3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.

4. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.

5. Contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going seven miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)! (see reply #270)

Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force.

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.

In Summary
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!

2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field. There are no objects or fields in space (I regard them to be so small/weak as to be virtually non-existent).

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1054 on: September 07, 2019, 09:58:26 AM »
Let me explain to everyone here why the RE cannot resort to general relativity to account for gravity.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

So, in order to make any sense at all out of explaining the cause of gravity, physicists have resorted to the use of gravitational waves assumed to be ripples in the fabric of spacetime.

The Hulse-Taylor experiment proved their existence and in 2016 it was announced by LIGO that they had made the first direct observation of gravitational waves.

It was ALWAYS assumed that Einstein's equations can describe these gravitational waves, that is, that Einstein's equations have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.



However, as early as 1917, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, T. Levi-Civita discovered a huge flaw in these equations: there is no bounded dynamic solution.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

A. Gullstrand, the chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also discovered in 1921 that Einstein's equations cannot be applied to DYNAMIC situations: that is why he refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

None other than Einstein himself also discovered this very fact in 1936:



https://archive.org/details/TheBornEinsteinLetters/page/n72

THAT IS, THERE ARE NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTIONS USING THE ORIGINAL EINSTEIN EQUATIONS.

Now, the best part.

Gravitational waves become possible if, and only if, an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL TERM is added to the original equations, which is exactly what Reissner and Nordstrom and Weyl did.

But this takes the wind out of round earth theory immediately.

Here is the proof that the original Einstein equations do not have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

https://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/354

See also:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825

So first things first

One of two things is going to happen at some point in the future, either somebody is going to create a unifying theory and complete Einsteins work or a brand new theory will supplant it .

However, as Eisenstein supplanted  Newton, Newtons works still work and are still used today. You have used Newtonion Mechanics yourself in this thread.

So General relativity is expressed in 10 equations, which can be expressed together as



The Einstein Field Equations or EFE.

EFE was published in 1915 then again in 1916. However didnt really pick up pace till the 1960's when improvements mathmatical technique , allowed simplifications not previously possible. Im not going to accept the partial 1917 paper, which the abstract itself says was supplanted by Einstein but worth looking at for the beauty of the maths. Their are hundreds if not thousands of papers since looking at all of the tensors contained in the original EFE

There are pages and pages of derivations, all this led to



The expression on the left represents the curvature of spacetime as determined by the metric; the expression on the right represents the matter/energy content of spacetime. The EFE can then be interpreted as a set of equations dictating how matter/energy determines the curvature of spacetime.

Exact solutions for the EFE can only be found under simplifying assumptions such as symmetry. Special classes of exact solutions are most often studied as they model many gravitational phenomena, such as rotating black holes and the expanding universe. Further simplification is achieved in approximating the actual spacetime as flat spacetime with a small deviation, leading to the linearized EFE. These equations are used to study phenomena such as gravitational waves.

The fact the EFE has predicted and proved numerous areas of physics is irrefutable, pointing to one part of the original text and shouting tah dah is a little weak tbh
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1055 on: September 07, 2019, 10:24:11 AM »
The fact the EFE has predicted and proved numerous areas of physics is irrefutable, pointing to one part of the original text and shouting tah dah is a little weak tbh

You still don't get it.

Einstein's equations apply ONLY TO STATIC SYSTEMS.

Nothing else.

There is no bounded dynamic solution.

There are no gravitational waves, no ripples in spacetime with Einstein's equation.

They cannot be applied to anything, whether it be the perihelion of Mercury, or the bending light, or the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Here is how Einstein faked/fudged his static equations to for the perihelion of Mercury:

The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look (the perihelion is the point in the orbit closest to a sun).  Graduate theses may one day be written about this peculiar episode in the history of science.  In his book, Subtle Is the Lord, Abraham Pais reports that when Einstein saw that his calculations agreed with Mercury’s orbit, “he had the feeling that something actually snapped in him ...  This experience was, I believe, by far the strongest emotional experience in Einstein’s scientific life, perhaps in all his life.  Nature had spoken to him.”

Fact:  The equation that accounted for Mercury’s orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before Relativity was invented.  The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light.  After Einstein published his General Relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber’s article was reprinted in *Annalen der Physik* (the journal that had published Einstein’s Relativity papers).  The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber’s priority.  Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber’s formula had been published in Mach’s Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied.  So how did they both arrive at the same formula?

Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber’s assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong.  So he studied the question.  He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics.  Consequently, it could be used as a “target” for calculations that were intended to arrive at it.  He saw that Gerber’s method “made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics.”  Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber’s derivation was “wrong through and through.”

So how did Einstein get the same formula?  Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had “three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier.”  So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier.  This man said it was his impression that, “knowing the answer,” Einstein had “jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.”

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

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


A devastating look at the fakery perpetrated by Einstein in order to sell to the world HIS STATIC SYSTEM OF EQUATIONS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194405#msg2194405


Both 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.


The fact the EFE has predicted and proved numerous areas of physics is irrefutable, pointing to one part of the original text and shouting tah dah is a little weak tbh

Brilliant.

ALL AND ANY PARTS OF EINSTEIN'S STATIC EQUATIONS ARE WRONG.

However, as early as 1917, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, T. Levi-Civita discovered a huge flaw in these equations: there is no bounded dynamic solution.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

A. Gullstrand, the chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also discovered in 1921 that Einstein's equations cannot be applied to DYNAMIC situations: that is why he refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

None other than Einstein himself also discovered this very fact in 1936:




THERE ARE NO PREDICTIONS WHATSOEVER BASED ON EINSTEIN'S STATIC EQUATIONS.

THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE DOES NOT OBEY ANYTHING PERTAINING TO EINSTEIN'S STATIC EQUATIONS.

Here is the DARK FLOW discovered by Dr. A. Kashlinsky from Nasa:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995

Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.


Einstein's equations become valid if, and only if, an antigravitational term is added.

Then, and only then, the linearized version can be applied to physical situations.



*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1056 on: September 07, 2019, 11:26:55 AM »
Now, if you want/desire the TECHNICAL details as to why this happens, well then, you are on your own, that is, use your own time to research this topic; here, it is well beyond the scope of our discussion.

If you want ME to do this, you'd better pay me by the hour to do such an involved research in nonlinear optics.

Just to put a coda on this because you fabricating things makes me and our dear readers call into question what else you may have fabricated.

- It is your claim that cameras possess some sort of ability to obscure the "lower portion of an object" and replace it with water even though the object is in the center of the frame.
- It is your claim that the reason why, for instance, 95% of the Sky Dome and the lower third of the CN Tower is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.
- It is your claim that reason why, for instance, 25' (authors numbers from video) of the Torrox Lighthouse is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.

These are your claims. These are the ways you explain why we can't see the bottom of the objects, even though they are in the center of the frame.

Because these are your claims you need to at least point to some documentation/explanation that shows why a camera would do so in accordance with globe earth observations. No one has ever heard of a camera feature that does what you claim it does. Maybe it hasn't been invented yet, as you said. If that's the case, then you really have an issue with your integrity.

Again, your claim is that a camera magically hides the bottom of objects at will. How does that work? Please explain the mechanics of this feature. If you can't even point to something to back up your claims then we will consider your claims fabricated and invalid, therefore FE loses.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1057 on: September 07, 2019, 11:51:03 AM »
Sure I can, but that would mean to spend at least ten hours researching nonlinear optics as this subject relates to the focal length in order to provide the answer you want.

If you need this type of research, you have to pay for it.

My area of expertise is bifurcation theory.

I have the photographs and the precise data.

You have nothing at all.

I proved that the rooftop of the Sky Dome can be seen from a distance of 60 km from the beach located in St. Catharines, a fact impossible on a round earth.

Therefore RE loses.

Anything else, is well beyond the scope of our discussion.

If can't pay for this type of research, then you better accept the facts and shut up.

- It is your claim that cameras possess some sort of ability to obscure the "lower portion of an object" and replace it with water even though the object is in the center of the frame.
- It is your claim that the reason why, for instance, 95% of the Sky Dome and the lower third of the CN Tower is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.
- It is your claim that reason why, for instance, 25' (authors numbers from video) of the Torrox Lighthouse is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.


Not claims, BUT FACTS.

Here is the photograph to prove it:



You already know the numbers.

YOU have to explain why we can see the rooftop of the Sky Dome where there should be none.

Here is the perfect illustration of my explanation so far (that the quality of the camera is involved):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

If want to know WHY the focal length of a camera is unable to capture the entire image of the visual obstacle, that is your business.

You want to make it my business, you have to pay for it.

For my time.


Take a look at yourself stash.

How can you live like this?

Here you are claiming that the shape of the Earth is spherical, yet you cannot explain how trillions of billions of gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

When pressed to offer a simple answer, you quote directly from the wikipedia page on gravity, which is pathetic.

This means that someone else has to do the thinking for you, you'll accept anything that comes your way, any sordid explanation.

You owe it to yourself to find out that the explanation your quoted amounts to nothing at all.

Neither Newtonian attractive gravity nor general relativity can explain anything pertaining to why objects stay in place on the surface of a sphere.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 928
  • Physical Comedian
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1058 on: September 07, 2019, 01:13:03 PM »
My area of expertise is bifurcation theory.

That explains why everything you post sounds half baked.  ;)
Nullius in Verba


Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1060 on: September 07, 2019, 01:38:50 PM »

Here is the photograph to prove it:




Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.

?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1061 on: September 07, 2019, 01:45:48 PM »

Here is the photograph to prove it:




Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.

?

According to the photographer, 51 km.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1062 on: September 07, 2019, 01:53:00 PM »

Here is the photograph to prove it:




Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.

?

According to the photographer, 51 km.

Pretty close to what we see on the picture then. I think i did from 1m MSL for the observer, he could be a little higher, so he would be seen even more.
Yeah, exactly what would we expect to see on RE.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1063 on: September 07, 2019, 01:57:28 PM »
Let us imagine Toronto as a huge ship, with the CN Tower as its masthead.

First photograph:



Now, we use a better camera:



More details can be seen, of course.

Now, the third photograph:



https://www.distancecalculator.net/from-toronto-to-st-catharines


https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

ROGERS CENTRE: SKY DOME clearly visible in the photograph; however IT PROVES THE FLAT EARTH THEORY DIRECTLY AND EXACTLY.


Height of Sky Dome: 86 meters, the building itself can be seen without any terrestrial refraction in the photograph, but we will include 10 meters, for the sake of the discussion; that is, the influence of the refraction will be some 10 meters...


Two other photographs, taken right there, on the same beach:

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg
http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg

The altitude of the photographer can be easily estimated to be at or around 10 meters (if we would ascend to some 20 meters, that would mean that we are on top of a five-story building; certainly not the case here, as we can see from the photographs themselves; I would estimate some 5 meters, but we will go to 10 meters).

On a round earth, taking refraction into account, and ascending to some 10 meters, it would still be impossible to see the rooftop of the Sky Dome.

In order to see the roof top of the Sky Dome, we would have to ascend to at least 20 meters, that is, on top of a five story building; as we can see from the photographs taken right there, we are right on the St. Catharines beach itself.

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5


Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)



*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1064 on: September 07, 2019, 01:58:47 PM »

Here is the photograph to prove it:




Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.

?

According to the photographer, 51 km.

All of the dome should be hidden. Your 3959 mile radius Earth is a lie and you still teach and embrace the lie. If truth matters to you, then you should be asking why is the roof top seen? But we know what you are afraid of.
The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they can’t actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1065 on: September 07, 2019, 02:02:03 PM »

Here is the photograph to prove it:




Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.

?

According to the photographer, 51 km.

Pretty close to what we see on the picture then. I think i did from 1m MSL for the observer, he could be a little higher, so he would be seen even more.
Yeah, exactly what would we expect to see on RE.

Agreed and the FE explanation is that a camera somehow makes it look like Toronto is under 80+ meters of water. With zero explanation as to how a camera somehow makes it look like Toronto is under 80+ meters of water.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1066 on: September 07, 2019, 02:02:58 PM »
Sure I can, but that would mean to spend at least ten hours researching nonlinear optics as this subject relates to the focal length in order to provide the answer you want.

If you need this type of research, you have to pay for it.

My area of expertise is bifurcation theory.

I have the photographs and the precise data.

You have nothing at all.

I proved that the rooftop of the Sky Dome can be seen from a distance of 60 km from the beach located in St. Catharines, a fact impossible on a round earth.

Therefore RE loses.

Anything else, is well beyond the scope of our discussion.

If can't pay for this type of research, then you better accept the facts and shut up.

- It is your claim that cameras possess some sort of ability to obscure the "lower portion of an object" and replace it with water even though the object is in the center of the frame.
- It is your claim that the reason why, for instance, 95% of the Sky Dome and the lower third of the CN Tower is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.
- It is your claim that reason why, for instance, 25' (authors numbers from video) of the Torrox Lighthouse is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.


Not claims, BUT FACTS.

Here is the photograph to prove it:



You already know the numbers.

YOU have to explain why we can see the rooftop of the Sky Dome where there should be none.

Here is the perfect illustration of my explanation so far (that the quality of the camera is involved):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

If want to know WHY the focal length of a camera is unable to capture the entire image of the visual obstacle, that is your business.

You want to make it my business, you have to pay for it.

For my time.


Take a look at yourself stash.

How can you live like this?

Here you are claiming that the shape of the Earth is spherical, yet you cannot explain how trillions of billions of gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

When pressed to offer a simple answer, you quote directly from the wikipedia page on gravity, which is pathetic.

This means that someone else has to do the thinking for you, you'll accept anything that comes your way, any sordid explanation.

You owe it to yourself to find out that the explanation your quoted amounts to nothing at all.

Neither Newtonian attractive gravity nor general relativity can explain anything pertaining to why objects stay in place on the surface of a sphere.

Well it is obvious that your understanding of Newtonian gravity, is flawed,
it is Newtonian gravity, that shapes the earth, the proving of that, to your satisfaction is what is most difficult.
The size of the earth, gives the impression, to a local area, as being flat.
We use Newton's gravity to explain the orbit of the moon, and lunar tides.
Taking into account the earth moon bodies have a center of gravity, this center of gravity is located somewhat under the surface of the earth, the water of the oceans, is attracted to the center, this center is constantly on the move following the orbit of the moon, changing the tides as it moves along. The rotation of the earth also complicates this movement, let alone, (earth moon) orbiting the sun.
All by Newtonian gravity. Einstein’s gravity, is a refinement of this.
With this understanding of gravity,  we have put satellites in orbit,
 we have put men on the moon,
we have put probes on Mars,
we have sent probes to Saturn.
 we have sent probes on a flyby to the other planets.
We have the ISS in orbit, and send people to it on a regular basis.
If you deny this, it just verifies the fact that you not understand Newton's gravity.
or can you explain each of the above.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1067 on: September 07, 2019, 02:05:57 PM »

Here is the photograph to prove it:




Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.

?

According to the photographer, 51 km.

All of the dome should be hidden. Your 3959 mile radius Earth is a lie and you still teach and embrace the lie. If truth matters to you, then you should be asking why is the roof top seen? But we know what you are afraid of.

No, actually, on a flat earth you have to ask why Toronto is under 80+ meters of water. That is the vexing question.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1068 on: September 07, 2019, 02:08:19 PM »
10m observer, makes it totally possible to see the roof of sky dome.

*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1069 on: September 07, 2019, 02:10:47 PM »
Sure I can, but that would mean to spend at least ten hours researching nonlinear optics as this subject relates to the focal length in order to provide the answer you want.

If you need this type of research, you have to pay for it.

My area of expertise is bifurcation theory.

I have the photographs and the precise data.

You have nothing at all.

I proved that the rooftop of the Sky Dome can be seen from a distance of 60 km from the beach located in St. Catharines, a fact impossible on a round earth.

Therefore RE loses.

Anything else, is well beyond the scope of our discussion.

If can't pay for this type of research, then you better accept the facts and shut up.

- It is your claim that cameras possess some sort of ability to obscure the "lower portion of an object" and replace it with water even though the object is in the center of the frame.
- It is your claim that the reason why, for instance, 95% of the Sky Dome and the lower third of the CN Tower is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.
- It is your claim that reason why, for instance, 25' (authors numbers from video) of the Torrox Lighthouse is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.


Not claims, BUT FACTS.

Here is the photograph to prove it:



You already know the numbers.

YOU have to explain why we can see the rooftop of the Sky Dome where there should be none.

Here is the perfect illustration of my explanation so far (that the quality of the camera is involved):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

If want to know WHY the focal length of a camera is unable to capture the entire image of the visual obstacle, that is your business.

You want to make it my business, you have to pay for it.

For my time.


Take a look at yourself stash.

How can you live like this?

Here you are claiming that the shape of the Earth is spherical, yet you cannot explain how trillions of billions of gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

When pressed to offer a simple answer, you quote directly from the wikipedia page on gravity, which is pathetic.

This means that someone else has to do the thinking for you, you'll accept anything that comes your way, any sordid explanation.

You owe it to yourself to find out that the explanation your quoted amounts to nothing at all.

Neither Newtonian attractive gravity nor general relativity can explain anything pertaining to why objects stay in place on the surface of a sphere.

Well it is obvious that your understanding of Newtonian gravity, is flawed,
it is Newtonian gravity, that shapes the earth, the proving of that, to your satisfaction is what is most difficult.
The size of the earth, gives the impression, to a local area, as being flat.
We use Newton's gravity to explain the orbit of the moon, and lunar tides.
Taking into account the earth moon bodies have a center of gravity, this center of gravity is located somewhat under the surface of the earth, the water of the oceans, is attracted to the center, this center is constantly on the move following the orbit of the moon, changing the tides as it moves along. The rotation of the earth also complicates this movement, let alone, (earth moon) orbiting the sun.
All by Newtonian gravity. Einstein’s gravity, is a refinement of this.
With this understanding of gravity,  we have put satellites in orbit,
 we have put men on the moon,
we have put probes on Mars,
we have sent probes to Saturn.
 we have sent probes on a flyby to the other planets.
We have the ISS in orbit, and send people to it on a regular basis.
If you deny this, it just verifies the fact that you not understand Newton's gravity.
or can you explain each of the above.

It's obvious you don't know what a mirage is over water and how it can block the view of things behind it.!


The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they can’t actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1070 on: September 07, 2019, 02:13:35 PM »
Newtonian gravity you say.

I have very bad news for you.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:




https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1071 on: September 07, 2019, 02:15:45 PM »
10m observer, makes it totally possible to see the roof of sky dome.

Not from St. Catharines.

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1072 on: September 07, 2019, 02:25:04 PM »
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
Yes, notice how it isn't a second body?

Stop lying by saying various things are according to me.
They are not. You are blatantly lying about my position and still avoiding the question.

This is an interesting theory (which eventually boils down to nothing more than meaningless wordplay), but it is plainly wrong
Yes, what you have provided is nothing more than meaningless wordplay to avoid the issue yet again.
It is entirely from your stupidity, not mine, as I have said nothing of the sort.
The chemical reaction is not a force. All it is doing is heating up the gas.
The force comes when the gas interacts with the rocket, with each pushing off each other. This pushes the rocket forwards and the gas backwards and is known as thrust.

Once again you have failed to even attempt to answer the question.
Yet again you have started off with your gas already magically accelerated.

Again, you need to start from the gas at rest. What is accelerating it?
And no, I don't mean simply heating it up which does not accelerate the gas as a bulk. I mean what is causing it to move in a particular direction.

Are you going to attempt to address this issue or will you just continue with your lies and avoidance?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1073 on: September 07, 2019, 02:25:58 PM »
10m observer, makes it totally possible to see the roof of sky dome.

Not from St. Catharines.

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5

According to the flickr photo:

dodis 9y
50,95 km from place you took the picture 43°11'1.01"N , 79°22'7.03"W to CN Tower ;-)
 
Jackson Myers  9y (The photographer)
Cool, thanks for the data! :)


The sky dome is also 7-10 meters above the lake.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1074 on: September 07, 2019, 02:28:37 PM »
10m observer, makes it totally possible to see the roof of sky dome.

Not from St. Catharines.

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5

St. Catharines is at about 102m MSL, so even more than possible.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1075 on: September 07, 2019, 02:30:50 PM »
It's obvious you don't know what a mirage is over water and how it can block the view of things behind it.!

It's obvious that the wall of water in this image is not a mirage.


Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1076 on: September 07, 2019, 02:43:17 PM »
Newtonian gravity you say.

I have very bad news for you.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:




https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

I have no problem, with magnetism, or static electricity, overwhelming gravity.
Can you tell me, how magnetism or static electricity, create the tides.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1077 on: September 07, 2019, 02:50:29 PM »
St. Catharines is at about 102m MSL, so even more than possible.

This is not the CN section.

The entire geological structure is above sea level.

We are on the beach in St. Catharines at the same level with lake Ontario and Toronto.


There are no more captions on the page:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

"dodis 9y
50,95 km from place you took the picture 43°11'1.01"N , 79°22'7.03"W to CN Tower ;-)
 
Jackson Myers  9y (The photographer)
Cool, thanks for the data! "

Where did this come from, since the captions are not seen on the page itself?

It can't be 51 km, since the distance to Toronto from St. Catharines is 60 km.


Let's go to Hamilton, distance to the other side of the lake, 60 km.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream

No curvature whatsoever, from Hamilton to Lakeshore West Blvd.





CAPTION: TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1078 on: September 07, 2019, 03:04:05 PM »
St. Catharines is at about 102m MSL, so even more than possible.

This is not the CN section.

The entire geological structure is above sea level.

We are on the beach in St. Catharines at the same level with lake Ontario and Toronto.


St. Catharines beaches are at aprox. 70m - 80m MSL.
Still - absolutely possible.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1079 on: September 07, 2019, 03:15:25 PM »
The fact the EFE has predicted and proved numerous areas of physics is irrefutable, pointing to one part of the original text and shouting tah dah is a little weak tbh

You still don't get it.

Einstein's equations apply ONLY TO STATIC SYSTEMS.

Nothing else.

There is no bounded dynamic solution.

There are no gravitational waves, no ripples in spacetime with Einstein's equation.

They cannot be applied to anything, whether it be the perihelion of Mercury, or the bending light, or the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Here is how Einstein faked/fudged his static equations to for the perihelion of Mercury:

The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look (the perihelion is the point in the orbit closest to a sun).  Graduate theses may one day be written about this peculiar episode in the history of science.  In his book, Subtle Is the Lord, Abraham Pais reports that when Einstein saw that his calculations agreed with Mercury’s orbit, “he had the feeling that something actually snapped in him ...  This experience was, I believe, by far the strongest emotional experience in Einstein’s scientific life, perhaps in all his life.  Nature had spoken to him.”

Fact:  The equation that accounted for Mercury’s orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before Relativity was invented.  The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light.  After Einstein published his General Relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber’s article was reprinted in *Annalen der Physik* (the journal that had published Einstein’s Relativity papers).  The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber’s priority.  Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber’s formula had been published in Mach’s Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied.  So how did they both arrive at the same formula?

Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber’s assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong.  So he studied the question.  He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics.  Consequently, it could be used as a “target” for calculations that were intended to arrive at it.  He saw that Gerber’s method “made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics.”  Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber’s derivation was “wrong through and through.”

So how did Einstein get the same formula?  Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had “three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier.”  So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier.  This man said it was his impression that, “knowing the answer,” Einstein had “jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.”

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

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


A devastating look at the fakery perpetrated by Einstein in order to sell to the world HIS STATIC SYSTEM OF EQUATIONS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194405#msg2194405


Both 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.


The fact the EFE has predicted and proved numerous areas of physics is irrefutable, pointing to one part of the original text and shouting tah dah is a little weak tbh

Brilliant.

ALL AND ANY PARTS OF EINSTEIN'S STATIC EQUATIONS ARE WRONG.

However, as early as 1917, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, T. Levi-Civita discovered a huge flaw in these equations: there is no bounded dynamic solution.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

A. Gullstrand, the chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also discovered in 1921 that Einstein's equations cannot be applied to DYNAMIC situations: that is why he refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

None other than Einstein himself also discovered this very fact in 1936:




THERE ARE NO PREDICTIONS WHATSOEVER BASED ON EINSTEIN'S STATIC EQUATIONS.

THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE DOES NOT OBEY ANYTHING PERTAINING TO EINSTEIN'S STATIC EQUATIONS.

Here is the DARK FLOW discovered by Dr. A. Kashlinsky from Nasa:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995

Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.


Einstein's equations become valid if, and only if, an antigravitational term is added.

Then, and only then, the linearized version can be applied to physical situations.

Do you ever read anything either in debate, or papers produced after 1930.

So the greatest achievement in physics, to date is wrong because Einstein's equations are static.

 ::)

Putting aside the fact that Einstein abandoned his static model in 1917 as he kept doubting himself on the required cosmological constant, try not to think that Einstein's model is currently back in the fold since 1998 as dark energy fits as a cosmological constant, the fact you dont understand the difference between a model and an equation or that the einsteinian model isn't relativity

This is almost as good as your attempts at pythagoras
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.