Radar ranging in the Solar System

You have just been shown that Kepler FAKED/FUDGED all of his entries in the Nova Astronomia.

It doesn't get much worse than that.

Yet here you are ignoring this crucial evidence, at least as it relates to your own beliefs.

Everything you know about heliocentrism is based on KEPLER'S LIES and FAKED ENTRIES.

But to you it's no problem, which speaks volumes about your true intentions.


Refraction through a medium composed of ordinary matter is DIFFERENT than refraction through pure ether.

That is why you do not see chromatic aberrations "around" the Moon.

The local-ether model is a fact of science.

Look through a low power achromatic (doublet, one element crown glass the other flint glass) telescope or indeed a cheap pair of binoculars at the Moon and you will see definite chromatic aberration (false colour) around the edge.

Look at the Moon through a apochromat telescope (three element objective) and you will see very little chromatic aberration. 

An achromatic telescope simply brings the focal points of red and blue light into a near common focus while an apochromat telescope adds a third element to the objective lens which brings the green light to the same common focus and thus eliminates colour in the image.  You can also get a 'semi-apo' telescope where the front element is made of FPL-53 or ED (Extra-Low Dispersion) flourite glass.

If it wasn't for the brain we would see terrible chromatic aberration around the Moon because optically the human eye is very poor.  The brain corrects all the false colour effects for us, inverts the image for us to make it the right way up.

Chromatic aberration has absolutely nothing to do with the ether at all. Mainly because the ether doesn't exist except it seems in Sandys universe.  But what do I know after studying astronomy and optics for over 40 years?  Take either mine or Sandys word for it which ever suits you.

Question: does a ray of light split into its component colors?

If its a monochrome (single wavelength) ray of light then no it doesn't. If its a ray of white light covering the whole of the optical waveband (400-700nm) then it will do if you pass it through a glass prism or similar, or indeed a reflection or transmission diffraction grating.

The human eye is not sensitive enough to distinguish the different wavelengths (we see them as colours) of light under natural conditions.  The extent of refraction (slowing down) of light varies with wavelength (least for red, greatest for violet). This disperses the different wavelengths (colours) more and therefore makes them visible. The reverse happens if you pass a dispersed ray back through another prism of transmission grating and recombines the different wavelengths to form 'white' light again.

Newton performed this experiment and this showed him the colours were a property of light itself rather than simply an optical effect.

Indeed, a small amount of chromatic aberration should be expected due to refraction from the atmosphere and a larger amount from whatever lenses you're using.  However, to slow down light on the order of seconds, the degree of chromatic aberration would be extreme.


Does a ray of light split into its component colors?  Do you mean when refracting through a prism or something?  You and I both know the answer to that.

If its a ray of white light covering the whole of the optical waveband (400-700nm) then it will do if you pass it through a glass prism or similar, or indeed a reflection or transmission diffraction grating.

This disperses the different wavelengths (colours) more and therefore makes them visible. The reverse happens if you pass a dispersed ray back through another prism of transmission grating and recombines the different wavelengths to form 'white' light again.

Newton performed this experiment and this showed him the colours were a property of light itself rather than simply an optical effect.

Does a ray of light split into its component colors?  Do you mean when refracting through a prism or something?  You and I both know the answer to that.

Completely wrong.

You see, ether optics is very different than what you have been led to believe by Newton.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140305015809/http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/GoetheColour.html

Newton surmised that when we see a colour spectrum emerge from a prism, it is due to 'the splitting of light into its component colours'.


What Newton failed to do, was to take a look through the prism. If you actually do this, the white areas do not split into a rainbow of colour as might be expected -- you only see colour at the edges of objects.




The physicists explain it thus - the colourless light already contains the seven colours within itself - and when we make the light go through the prism, the prism really does no more than to fan out and separate what is already there in the light, - the seven colours, into which it is thus analyzed.

A look through the prism shows that we do not see the light in seven colours. The only place you can see any colour is at some edge or border-line.

If we let light pass through the space of the room, we get a white circle on a screen. Put a prism in the way, and the cylinder of light is diverted, (Figure IIc), but what appears is not the series of seven colours at all, only a reddish colour at the lower edge, passing over into
yellow, and at the upper edge a blue passing over into greenish shades. In the middle it stays white.




This is the subquark:



There are several strings of bosons: x-rays, gamma rays, visible light, thermal energy, gravitational energy.

You asked. I answered you.  If you don't want to accept what I have told you then that's up to you. I base my answers on my experience and clearly you base your answers on something else.

If what I have said is 'completely wrong' then all the books on physics I have ever read and all the websites describing the properties of light are wrong as well.  And I doubt that somehow.

This seems to back up what I have said.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/e6RMH.jpg

Every time you're backed into a corner, you just make up new physics.  This is why you're my favorite flat eather.  You're the only one who truly understands that in order for the earth to be flat, you have to throw out all of established science and history.

There are several strings of bosons: x-rays, gamma rays, visible light, thermal energy, gravitational energy.

Would you claim, then, that x-rays and visible light (and radio?) are fundamentally different "kinds" of light?  Not just different frequencies/wavelengths/energies of the same phenomenon?  Alternately, is "gravitational energy" on the same spectrum as visible light?

Also, what do you make of the fact that white light from your computer screen is literally just a combination of red, green, and blue light?

There are several strings of bosons: x-rays, gamma rays, visible light, thermal energy, gravitational energy

One type of boson is a photon which is the carrier (gauge boson) for the electromagnetic force.  All the above are different types of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. forms of energy). For thermal energy we usually say infra red of course.  I believe gravitational waves have now been detected so the above is basically correct.

You're the only one who truly understands that in order for the earth to be flat, you have to throw out all of established science and history.

What is established history?

https://searchworks.stanford.edu/catalog?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=zb871zd0767

Glen McLaughlin, California as an Island Collection, 708 items

G. McLaughlin published 249 of these maps in "The Mapping of California As An Island: An Illustrated Checklist ". The entire collection includes over 750 maps.

So, unless there was a colossal stone skipping project (either at the end of the 18th century, or at the beginning of the 19th century) using either ball lightning technology or massive labor for the necessary land mass, historians are going to have to accept the undeniable fact that before 1760 AD California was indeed an island, and that a tremendous geological upheaval pushed the Pacific coast eastward about 200 miles during the same time period.

Why do people accept a personal opinion founded on no experimental evidence whatsoever (Newton's ideas on gravity), or a legally and philosophically weak document (the Constitution) which apparently cannot be changed, and not more than 700 maps which do feature California as an island before 1760 AD?


Subquark ether physics:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998110#msg1998110 (two consecutive messages)

It's also possible that people make mistakes and mistakes get copied until they are corrected later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_California

By the way, does it bother you that your anu physics is based on someone's ESP account?

“California is undoubtedly an island. Why, I have had in my office mariners who have sailed round it.”

Herman Moll, 1711 AD

(England's foremost cartographer of his day, geographer to the King)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2169877#msg2169877 (the best analysis of Johannes Vingboons' map, two consecutive messages)


We all have this micro-psi abilities that are exhibited during dreams; some people are able to retain these psychic powers during daytime.

The proofs are 100% accurate, otherwise I would have never mentioned the subject.

Dr. Stephen Phillips (UCLA, Cambridge):

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

Achievements of the Occult Chemistry treatise (subquark ether quantum physics):

Baryons, mesons, quarks and /subquarks/preons were described over 50 years before conventional science.

It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory.

It described the existence of positrons 30 years before they were detailed.

It reported the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs.

It presented the existence of isotopes 5 years before their discovery.

Chadwick (neutron), Pauli (neutrino), Gell-Mann (quarks), Higgs (boson), ALL of these physicists COPIED their "discoveries" from a single source.

The entire theory of strings was copied from the pages of this work.

Each and every element and isotope correctly described (in 1908) DECADES before they were even discovered: promethium (1945), astatine (1940), francium (1939), protactinium (1921), technetium (1937), deuterium, neon-22 nuclide (1913).

A clear description of strings, bosons, quarks, subquarks, positrons, DECADES before these concepts even came into existence.

So Venus is ~15 kilometers away, and California was an island 300 years ago?

That is just insane.

Best you keep it Sagnac. That you can get away with keeping to esoteric formulae and forgotten tomes. I actually think those are pretty cool. Might use that stuff in some pen-and-paper RPG scenarios. (Should work quite well with Cthulhu by Gaslight, for example.)

Nowhere nearly as insane as having four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of sphere.

Or compared to the process of transforming a car into an airplane analogy.

M. Frank-Kamenetskii (Unraveling DNA): "It is clear, therefore, that you need a drastic refitting of the whole of your machine to make the car into a plane. The same is true for a protein. In trying to turn one enzyme into another, point mutations alone would not do the trick. What you need is a substantial change in the amino acid sequence. In this situation, rather than being helpful, selection is a major hindrance. One could think, for instance, that by consistently changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually prove possible to change the entire sequence substantially and thus the enzyme's spatial structure. These minor changes, however, are bound to result eventually in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but it has not yet begun its 'new duties.' It is at this point that it will be destroyed—together with the organism carrying it"

Nowhere nearly as insane as having four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of sphere.

That wouldn't make much sense... unless... there was some sort of force directed towards the center of that sphere... 🤔

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

I'm glad you linked that.  Dobyns' response absolutely crushes Phillips' pleading. And then Phillips' response back could be summarized as "yeah well that's you're opinion." 

You cannot escape reality by claiming terrestrial gravity is attractive.

Please describe the attractive mechanism.

"The combination of insight and error in the Theosophical data can be explained much more parsimoniously by presuming the visions of Occult Chemistry to be hallucinations, informed not only by the practitioners' knowledge of chemistry, but by some information gained through "micro-psi" or other anomalous means as well."

Y.H. Dobyns

Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real  objects and were not fabricated  ac-
cording  to their expectations?  Knowing which  groups of  the periodic  table
these  undiscovered  elements belong  to could  have  enabled them  to  deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups. But the values of  the atomic weights of  these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for  these  elements  agree with  their  chemical atomic  weights  to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have  come about by  chance in  every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery.  These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.

"The description of Adyarium was published in 1932, which was the year when James Chadwick discovered the neutron and Heisenburg proposed that it is present in atomic nuclei. It would be another 32 years before physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig proposed the theory of quarks. The fact that Besant & Leadbeater reported Adyarium to break up into six positive triplets and six negative triplets, i.e., six up quarks and six d quarks — precisely what the quark model predicts for the composition of the two protons and two neutrons in two deuterons — is incontrovertible evidence that quarks were remote-viewed."

"One of the central and crucial observations made by Besant and Leadbeater was that a hydrogen atom was composed of 18 subatomic particles which they christened as ‘Ultimate physical atoms’ or UPAs. Likewise they reported that the atoms of other elements also comprised of identical types of UPAs whose numbers increased in multiples of 18. Note that much of all this was done well before Rutherfords discovery of the atomic  nucleus in 1911, in other words before the dawn of the ‘nuclear era’!. In the early 20s came the highly successful Bohr-Schrodinger model of the atom, according to which a hydrogen atom comprised of a single proton around which orbited a single electron.

During the mid 70's, a theoretical physicist from Cambridge University in England, by the name of Stephen Phillips who was carrying out PH.D. studies in 'particle physics' at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), came across a copy of a book titled the 'Physics of the secret doctrine' by Kingsland wherein there was a diagram of the hydrogen atom as seen and recorded by Besant and Leadbeater. Physicists will recall that in 1963 a breakthrough in understanding elementary particles and nuclear structure came about through the postulation of a class of subnuclear particles called 'Quarks' independently by Gell‑Mann and Zweig. When Phillips saw Besant's diagram of the hydrogen atom he was astounded beyond belief as he realized that these clairvoyants had given out the 'quark' and indeed the 'subquark' structure of the nucleus as early as in 1895!

Phillips was so fascinated and overwhelmed by the exhaustive studies of Besant and Leadbeater, that he immediately embarked on a detailed analysis and interpretation of their findings, culminating in the publication of his 250 page book titled 'Extra sensory perception of quarks' in 1980.

Early on during their 'micro‑psi' investiga­tions, Besant and Leadbeater observed that different specimens of the same element were composed of identical microscopic objects which they christened as 'Micro Psi Atoms' or MPAs. They presumed that MPAs were atoms of the particular element under study, in their normal state, undisturbed by the act of random selection and psychokinetic (PK) perturbation.

The MPAs of elements as they appeared to them during 'micro psi visualization' comprised of symmetrically arranged groups of particles or 'points of light’ bound together in such rapid complex orbital motion that they presented initially only a blurred unfocussed image. But with practice and using a'special form of will‑power' they could slow down their motion sufficiently enough to observe the details. Throughout the investigations Leadbeater specialized in the study of the geometrical arrangement of the constituents of the MPAs and in identifying and counting their number whilst Annie Besant examined the configuration of the 'lines of force' linking and holding together groups of particles. These investigators could tune the magnifying power of their micro‑psi vision over a wide range and thereby resolve the images of particles into clusters of 'points of light', each of which were discerned to be discrete three dimensional objects. As the structure and configuration of each of these ultimate objects were identical, independent of the element under study, they surmised that these were the fundamental building blocks of all matter, and called them as 'Ultimate Physical Atoms’ or UPAs.

At this point it is worth clearly distinguish­ing between MPAs and UPAs. Besant and Leadbeater presumably identified MPAs with 'What physicists now refer to as the 'nucleus' of the atom, although in 1895 when they first commenced their investigations Rutherford had not yet discovered the atomic nucleus. There were as many MPAs as there are elements. UPAs on the other hand are the sub nuclear particles of which all nuclear matter is made of. As observed by Besant and Leadbeater there is essentially only one type of UPA, but this occurs either as a 'male' (or positive) version or a 'female' (or negative) version, which are mirror images of each other.

The clairvoyant investigators found that the MPAs of different elements had different shapes. Interestingly, barring a few exceptions, the shape of an MPA was correlated with the position of the element in the 'periodic table' of elements. (The reader may refer to any elementary text book on atomic physics or physical chemistry to know more about the Periodic Table of Elements if they wish). Thus the MPAs of all elements belonging to a particular group of the periodic table and consequently possessing similar chemical properties have similar shapes. The seven shapes into which the MPAs were categorised are titled by them as: 'spike', 'dumb‑bell', 'tetrahedron', 'cube', 'octahedron', 'bar' and 'star'. The geometrical symmetry of the MPAs simplified Leadbeater's task of counting the number of UPAs in an MPA, considering that the heavier elements had several thousands of UPAs in their MPAs. By 1907 when the first edition of 'Occult chemistry' was published Besant and Leadbeater had examined nearly 60 elements and altogether by the end of their monumental research work spanning 38 years they had recorded for posterity the details of 111 MPAs.

As already mentioned Besant and Leadbeater counted 18 UPA particles in the Micro Physical Atoms (MPA) of Hydrogen gas. A striking feature of their observations was that the number of UPAs increased approximately in multiples of 18 as the atomic weight of the element increased. By the turn of the last century science had progressed sufficiently enough that the atomic weights of most of the elements of the periodic table had been determined on a scale normalized to unity for hydrogen. When Besant and Leadbeater found that for several elements the number of UPAs in an MPA was an integral multiple of 18, they divided the number of UPAs counted by them by 18 to obtain an estimate of the 'atomic weight' of the elements. The 1919 edition of 'Occult chemistry' compares the micro‑psi atomic weight so obtained (specified to the second decimal place!) with the scientific atomic weight, and points out the remarkable agreement between the two.

Besant and Leadbeater began studying the atoms of elements systematically in increasing order of atomic weight starting from Hydrogen. When they reached neon (element no. 10) they were rather puzzled to observe that there were two varieties of neon MPAs having slightly different number of UPAs each, namely 360 and 402. They called these as Neon and 'Meta‑Neon' and recorded their micro‑psi atomic weights as 20.00 and 22.33 by dividing the number of UPAs in the MPA by 18. Similar behaviour was noted in the MPAs of Argon, Krypton, Xenon and even Platinum.

The scientifically minded readers may have guessed by now that Besant and Leadbeater had essentially stumbled upon the phenomenon referred to by atomic science as 'isotopes', five years before Aston's discovery of the same in 1912 using his newly invented instrument known as mass spec­trograph!

From the observed shapes of the MPAs and deduced micro‑psi atomic weights, these investigators were able to place the element under study properly in the periodic table of elements. In most cases, when the identity of the element was known to them already, the above method confirmed that their observations were accurate. In a few cases however the elements they investigated were not listed in the periodic table and in fact there were unfilled gaps in the table in the relevant locations. Thus these clairvoyant researchers accidentally discovered five elements which were unknown to science at the time of their work. These elements which have since been identified by science are: Promethium ('Illenium'), Astatine ('element no 85'), Fran­cium ('element no 87), Protoactinium ('element no 91') and Technetium ('Masuroium'). The names in brackets are the names assigned by Besant and Leadbeater in their original publication. It is thus obvious that these clairvoyants were surprisingly accurate in their estimates of atomic weights and the proper Placement of the elements studied, in the periodic chart."

You cannot escape reality by claiming terrestrial gravity is attractive.

But in reality gravity seems to do what it says on the tin, no?

You, the RE, brought the discussion to this very point: you are demanding to see the proofs of the existence of the Dome, of the local-ether model.
If those proofs are being provided, you then start to complain bitterly about the content of my messages, while your continuous trolling goes on unabated.

You aren't providing any proofs. You are just appealing to the same refuted nonsense where you blatantly misrepresent what these papers are saying and linking to the same spam.

If you want to provide it as proof, you would need to actually understand what the papers are presenting. They are all using a heliocentric solar system and none are claiming any problem with it. None are claiming there is anything missing in reality based upon this model.

So all it is proof of is that the current system works.

Those issues were answered a long time ago.

You mean they were dismissed by you simply asserting that it is all fine.

Do the math to show how we get this delay.

None of you here are able to explain the Schroeter effect, which does prove my statements:

It does nothing of the sort.

It is just another example of you trying to use whatever you can to pretend you have a case.

Newton believed

I don't care what he believed, but since you do so much, Newton believed that Earth was round and orbited the very distant sun.
So why don't you listen to Newton and accept the reality of a round, rotating Earth, orbiting the sun?
Especially as what you are saying is pure fantasy.

Question: does a ray of light split into its component colors?

That question is full of semantics.
Non-monochromatic light is composed of many many colours, which can be separated by the principles of refraction and diffraction.

What Newton failed to do, was to take a look through the prism. If you actually do this, the white areas do not split into a rainbow of colour as might be expected -- you only see colour at the edges of objects.

Wrong. I know as I have done this many times, and use instruments which rely upon this.
If you look through a proper prism with the required thickness, then light will be split into its component wavelengths. And no, it isn't seven colours, they are just arbitrary names. It is a spectrum.
If instead you take a crappy prism which isn't thick enough then it will not split enough and thus you will end up with a region of red on one side, a region of blue on the other and something mostly white in the middle.

With some modern lights, you don't get the full spectrum, instead you see regions that are illuminated and regions that are missing, as the light doesn't actually produce the full spectrum.

You can also use a diffraction grating, which is much cheaper, but which suffers from higher order diffraction.

And now that you are completely unable to rationally defend your claims you are just runing wildly off into more and more nonsense.
If you want to discuss gravity, do it in another thread.


Now again, where is the evidence for your magic impossible dome?
How does it manage to slow down light so much and so differently that it produces the observed times?

vs.



You haven't got a clue as to what you are saying.

You are repeating what you have read, long time ago, in a certain textbook.

If you look through a proper prism with the required thickness, then light will be split into its component wavelengths. And no, it isn't seven colours, they are just arbitrary names. It is a spectrum.

Completely wrong.

"Newton surmised that when we see a colour spectrum emerge from a prism,
it is due to 'the splitting of light into its component colours'.

If this were the case, then in the photograph below, there should be
a spectrum with GREEN in the middle. Yet, since the aperature through which
the light is shining is large, we get no such spectrum, we only get colour
at the edges. In an attempt to isolate the phenomena, Newton decided to
narrow the aperature which results in the spectrum we are now familiar with,
and which he used as a basis for his Optiks.

What Newton failed to do, was to take a look through the prism.
If you actually do this, the white areas do not split into a rainbow of
colour as might be expected -- you only see colour at the edges of objects.

When light shines through a prism, we are simply projecting a picture
whose aperature has edges -- there is darkness outside this circular patch,
and relatively light within it. We notice that it is at the edges between
the light and dark areas where Colours first make their appearance.

When the aperature is sufficiently small so that the edges meet in
the middle to form the green -- only then can you see a continous spectrum.
A wider aperature brings us to the primal phenomenon -- a reddish/yellow
on some edges, and a bluish/cyan on the others.

The continuous spectrum with green in the middle arises only where
the (blue-cyan and yellow-red) edges come close enough to overlap.

We no longer see the original phenomenon when we make so small a circle
that the colours extend inward from the edges to overlap in the middle
to form what is called a 'continuous spectrum', while with the larger
circle, the colours formed at the edges stay as they are.

Thus, this is the primal phenomenon -- that Colours arise at the borders
where Light and Dark work together, and the Spectrum is a secondary,
compound phenomenon.

In the 1780's a number of statements as to the way colours arise came to
Goethe's notice. Of the prismatic phenomena, it was commonly held by
physicists that when you let colourless light go through a prism the
colourless light is split up. For in some such way the phenomena were
interpreted.

If we let a cylinder of colourless light impinge on the screen, it shows a
colourless picture. Putting a prism in the way of the cylinder of light,
we get the sequence of colours: red, orange, yellow, green, blue - light
blue and dark blue, - violet.

The physicists explain it thus - the colourless light already contains the
seven colours within itself - and when we make the light go through the
prism, the prism really does no more than to fan out and separate what is
already there in the light, - the seven colours, into which it is thus
analyzed.

A look through the prism shows that we do not see the light in seven
colours. The only place you can see any colour is at some edge or
border-line.

If we let light pass through the space of the room, we get a white circle
on a screen. Put a prism in the way, and the cylinder of light is
diverted, (Figure I), but what appears is not the series of seven
colours at all, only a reddish colour at the lower edge, passing over into
yellow, and at the upper edge a blue passing over into greenish shades. In
the middle it stays white.

Goethe now said to himself: It is not that the light is split up or that
anything is separated out of the light as such. In point of fact, I am
projecting a picture, - simply an image of this circular aperture. The
aperture has edges, and where the colours occur the reason is not that
they are drawn out of the light, as though the light had been split up
into them. It is because this picture which I am projecting - the picture
as such - has edges. Here too the fact is that where light adjoins dark,
colours appear at the edges. It is none other than that. For there is
darkness outside this circular patch of light, while it is relatively
light within it.

The colours therefore, to begin with, make their appearance purely and
simply as phenomena at the border between light and dark. This is the
original, the primary phenomenon. We are no longer seeing the original
phenomenon when by reducing the circle in size we get a continuous
sequence of colours. The latter phenomenon only arises when we take so
small a circle that the colours extend inward from the edges to the
middle. They then overlap in the middle and form what we call a continuous
spectrum, while with the larger circle the colours formed at the edges
stay as they are. This is the primal phenomenon. Colours arise at the
borders, where light and dark flow together.

Subsequent to this, Goethe's went on to make more exact observations
which further call this 'splitting up of the light' by a prism into question:

- Begin with a circular slit from which Light shines through a PRISM.
- Light is deflected upwards.
- The projection is not an exact circle, but rather elongated.
- The upper portion is edged with Blue.
- The lower portion is edged with Red.

- Taking into account the observation that Light passing through
  any medium is dimmed. In this case, there is a dimming of light
  within the prism.

- Therefore, we have to do not only with the cone of light that is here
  bent and deflected, but also with this new factor - the dimming
  of the light brought about by matter.

- Into the space beyond the prism not only the light is shining,
  but there shines in, there rays into the light the quality of dimness
  that is in the prism.

- This dimming is deflected upward in the same direction as the light.

- Here then we are dealing with the interaction of two things:
  i) the brightly shining light, itself deflected,
  ii) then the sending into it of the darkening effect that is poured
      into this shining light. Only the dimming and darkening effect is
      here deflected in the same direction as the light.

- The Outcome is that in the upward region the bright light is infused
  and irradiated with dimness, and by this means the dark or bluish colours
  are produced.

- Downwards, the light outdoes and overwhelms the darkness and there arise
  the yellow shades of colour.

- Simply through the fact that the prism on the one hand deflects the full
  bright cone of light and on the other hand also deflects the dimming of it,
  we have the two kinds of entry of the dimming or darkening into the light.
  We have an interplay of dark and light, not getting mixed to give a grey but
  remaining mutually independent in their activity.

- The material prism plays an essential part in the arising of the
  colours. For it is through the prism that it happens, namely that on the
  one hand the dimming is deflected in the same direction as the cone of
  light, while on the other hand, because the prism lets its darkness ray
  there too, this that rays on and the light that is deflected cut across
  each other. For that is how the deflection works down here. Downward, the
  darkness and the light are interacting in a different way than upward.
 
  Colours therefore arise where dark and light work together.


This is what happens in reality:



Everything you thought you knew about the universe turned out to be very wrong.

And you still don't get it that you don't stand a chance with me here.

Ok:

The F-15 can climb to 30,000 feet (9,100 m) in around 60 seconds.

(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle)

It means 60,000 feet (18.2 km) in 2 minutes.
Let's say another 2 minutes back.
Venus is at 15 km, radar pulse takes 5-6 minutes to go there and back.
Radio waves travel at the speed of light.
It clearly means that F-15 can fly faster than light.

Another thing: if Sun is at 12 km and Venus at 15, how can we see those Venus transits?
How high is Mercury?

Nowhere nearly as insane as having four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of sphere.

Agreed, water is a liquid and anyone suggesting that "four trillion billion liters of water" can be "glued next to the outer surface of sphere" simply has to be bordering on insane.

A liquid simple cannot be glued!

But have you ever lifted a 1 litre bottle of say Mountain Dew - this sort of thing?
You will find it weighs about 1.125 kg meaning that there is some force of 1.125 kg.force (about 11 N if a scientist like yourself prefers).

Now put that bottle of say Mountain Dew down on the ground and try to lift it up again.
Is it difficult? Of course not! All you have to apply is a force of a bit over 11 N.
Is it "glued next to the outer upper surface of" the Earth. Of course not!

Now take a 1 litre jug down to the ocean's edge and scoop up 1 litre of sea-water. That wasn't hard, all it took to lift was about 10 Newtons.
Was that sea-water "glued next to the outer upper surface of" the Earth. No.

Well, every one those "four trillion billion liters of water" is held to the surface of the Earth by a similar force caused by what we chose to call "gravity".

Was that so hard to understand and does that sound in any way " insane"?

<< Totally irrelevant! >>

You haven't got a clue as to what you are saying.
You are repeating what you have read, long time ago, in a certain textbook.

Projecting again I see.
You are just rejecting reality with no rational basis at all.

Completely wrong.

If you wish to assert it is completely wrong you need to justify your claims, because all the available evidence shows you are wrong.

And no, providing a picture of a prism which doesn't split the light enough because it isn't adequate or isn't actually a prism doesn't make your case.

If you wish to even try to use that picture what you need to start with is providing an explanation of how those colours appear at the edge.
Meanwhile I have already provided a reason that it would appear like that.
Repeatedly asserting the same falsehoods will not help you.

If this were the case, then in the photograph below, there should be
a spectrum with GREEN in the middle. Yet, since the aperature through which
the light is shining is large, we get no such spectrum, we only get colour
at the edges. In an attempt to isolate the phenomena, Newton decided to
narrow the aperature which results in the spectrum we are now familiar with,
and which he used as a basis for his Optiks.

And there you go showing just why you are wrong.
The prism doesn't magically collimate and converge the light into an infinitely thin beam and then split it.
Instead it splits each individual beam coming into it.
What this means is if you have a large light source, then that arrives as multiple beams which are then each split, with the result out the other end being a combination of those spectra.
As it is large, in the middle you will have multiple spectra overlapping and thus produce white light again.

But even in this post you are effectively admitting that you are completely wrong and that a prism will split light into its component colours.
But the more important part is why this issue was actually raised, the index of refraction is different for each wavelength.
This is what produces the separation.
This would also mean that each wavelength of light would produce a different range due to a different index of refraction slowing it down.

If it was just due to the edges, then there would be no need for a prism and it would occur all the time.
Also, if it was just due to the edges, there is no reason for red to appear on one side and blue on the other.
This only makes sense when you accept that the prism has a different index of refraction for each wavelength of light and thus the red, long wavelength is refracted to a different extent than the blue, short wavelength.
So the explanation you provide makes no sense at all.

Now again:
Where is the evidence for your magic impossible dome?
How does it manage to slow down light so much and so differently that it produces the observed times? (Do an actual calculation to show it).

vs.



You haven't got a clue as to what you are saying.
You are repeating what you have read, long time ago, in a certain textbook.

If you look through a proper prism with the required thickness, then light will be split into its component wavelengths. And no, it isn't seven colours, they are just arbitrary names. It is a spectrum.

Completely wrong.

I'll agree that the diagrams (NOT photographs) are misleading and that the resolution of the spectrum is determined by the width of the beam but most of what you say is total poppy-cock so I deleted it.

And you still don't get it that you don't stand a chance with me here.

And you still don't get it that you don't know one tenth as much as you think you do and understand even less.

You seem to think that you know more than every astronomer, physicist, mathematician and everybody else ever born, but you don't.
Anyone looking through your famous "Advanced Flat Earth Theory" and host of "Paradoxes" can see case after case of a total failure of your own logical abilities leading to the most ludicrous hypotheses.
One such as the Sun being 600 m in diameter and 15 km away all based on a few photographs.

You are just rejecting reality with no rational basis at all.

Certainly not me, but YOU.

You cannot accept reality, this is a fact.

You have denied four times the existence of the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, only to be painfully reminded of the contrary.

And you have done this right here in front of everyone else.

A fact which should be very worrisome to you.

Instead it splits each individual beam coming into it.

But it doesn't.

""Newton surmised that when we see a colour spectrum emerge from a prism,
it is due to 'the splitting of light into its component colours'.

If this were the case, then in the photograph below, there should be
a spectrum with GREEN in the middle. Yet, since the aperature through which
the light is shining is large, we get no such spectrum, we only get colour
at the edges. In an attempt to isolate the phenomena, Newton decided to
narrow the aperature which results in the spectrum we are now familiar with,
and which he used as a basis for his Optiks.

What Newton failed to do, was to take a look through the prism.
If you actually do this, the white areas do not split into a rainbow of
colour as might be expected -- you only see colour at the edges of objects."



Here is another experiment carried out at Cal State Long Beach, where the WHITE LIGHT  is seen coming out of the prism:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160312043114/http://web.csulb.edu/~percept/kyotocolor.html



In your hare-brained analysis you are assuming A CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT.

However, as you have been reminded previously, the speed of light is VARIABLE.

Listen to Newton:

In order to explain refraction, in fact, Newton's Opticks (1704) postulated an "Aethereal Medium" transmitting vibrations faster than light, by which light (when overtaken) is put into "Fits of easy Reflexion and easy Transmission" (causing refraction and diffraction).

You seem to think that you know more than every astronomer, physicist, mathematician and everybody else ever born, but you don't.

Perhaps I do.

I have derived the GLOBAL NATURAL LOGARITHM FORMULA, the first of its kind.

I have derived the RIEMANN ZETA ZEROS using only basic arithmetic and a novel way of the use of the two zeta functions.

I have derived the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.

Results which are as good as any provided by what you assume to be the best scientists available.

You, on the other hand, have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.

Remember this?

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s²!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s² value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10^-7)² x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s².

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s².
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)².
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)² = 274.35 m/s² - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: a_c = 0.0063 m/s².

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU are now guilty of having provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.

Do you understand what you have done? YOU are now guilty of having provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

If the Sun has a diameter of 600 meters, then what does that make the diameter of Venus?




why on Earth would it take a radar signal 6 and 1/2 minutes to travel 15 km and back again when radar routinely picks up objects over 100 km away nearly instantaneously?

I think the problem here is that in his calculations, he's using pi instead of phew.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025 (part II)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025 (part II)

I just did a quick(and remarkably basic) math using the ratio of the distance from the Earth to ISS and the Earth to the Sun and compared it to the size of the ISS and the size of the Sun and the size seems about right. The width(longest dimension) of the ISS ought to appear about 1/35th the diameter of the Sun.

Sure, but your pal also did a quick (and remarkably basic) math calculation where he linked the value of the orbital angular velocity with the sun's gravity at the surface.

Orbital angular velocity = ZERO (missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT)

Therefore, a(sun) also equals ZERO.

The FE Sun's diameter has to be smaller than the radius of the Earth itself, smaller than the distance between the two tropics, smaller than this distance divided by 180, and finally smaller than the annual precession figure (1.5 km/year).

If you want to choose a figure for the diameter of the Sun which is less than 1.5 km and at the same time different than 636 meters (1000 sacred cubits), be my guest.

Sure, but your pal also did a quick (and remarkably basic) math calculation where he linked the value of the orbital angular velocity with the sun's gravity at the surface.

Orbital angular velocity = ZERO (missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT)

Therefore, a(sun) also equals ZERO.

The FE Sun's diameter has to be smaller than the radius of the Earth itself, smaller than the distance between the two tropics, smaller than this distance divided by 180, and finally smaller than the annual precession figure (1.5 km/year).

If you want to choose a figure for the diameter of the Sun which is less than 1.5 km and at the same time different than 636 meters (1000 sacred cubits), be my guest.

And yet, it's diameter appears 35 times the width of the ISS; currently cruising around the Earth at a distance of 400 km. Even if The Sun were at the same distance(unlikely), that would still give it a diameter of over 3500 meters. That diameter would only be larger the further away from the ISS the Sun actually is.