Ultimele subiecte
» Legi de conservare (2)
Scris de Vizitator Astazi la 10:47

» Două corpuri cu temperaturi diferite
Scris de Dacu Astazi la 09:20

» Directia Curbilinie
Scris de virgil_48 Astazi la 07:50

» Ce este FOIP?
Scris de virgil_48 Ieri la 09:55

» Despre votul pozitiv sau negativ
Scris de Dacu Ieri la 07:08

» Analiza noțiunii de "Direcție Curbilinie"
Scris de virgil_48 Ieri la 06:44

» Judecarea celor care încalcă "Forma actualizată a Regulamentului"
Scris de Dacu Sam 15 Feb 2020, 16:57

» Despre ecuaţiile lui Maxwell
Scris de Abel Cavaşi Joi 13 Feb 2020, 14:58

» Care este cel mai simplu şi mai general model al realităţii?
Scris de Forever_Man Mier 12 Feb 2020, 10:46

» Tesla, omul- munca, geniu, rezultate
Scris de mm Mar 11 Feb 2020, 14:46

» Orice vector are un triedru Frenet
Scris de virgil_48 Vin 07 Feb 2020, 07:26

» Motorul cu free energy
Scris de virgil Joi 06 Feb 2020, 21:13

» Ce este realitatea?
Scris de mm Joi 06 Feb 2020, 19:33

» Mecanica FOIP si actiunea acestuia asupra corpurilor.(secţiunea 4)
Scris de virgil_48 Mier 05 Feb 2020, 09:03

» Aparitii la momentul mortii
Scris de Dacu Lun 03 Feb 2020, 17:35

» Critica atractiei gravitationale
Scris de virgil_48 Lun 03 Feb 2020, 10:19

» Soarele in High Definition
Scris de gafiteanu Sam 01 Feb 2020, 23:50

» Lucrul mecanic - definitie si exemple (Secţiunea 2)
Scris de virgil_48 Vin 31 Ian 2020, 20:01

» Pamantul Plat - dovezi, fotografii
Scris de virgil Vin 31 Ian 2020, 08:07

» Despre ceva.
Scris de curiosul Joi 30 Ian 2020, 20:01

» Sabloanele mele LaTex
Scris de virgil_48 Sam 18 Ian 2020, 23:31

» Laborator-sa construim impreuna
Scris de scanteitudorel Sam 18 Ian 2020, 19:34

» Dacă linia nu ar fi o dreaptă, cum ar descoperi asta Ştiinţa actuală?
Scris de mm Sam 18 Ian 2020, 17:39

» Legile Fizicii din interiorul unei găuri negre trebuie să fie echivalente cu cele din exteriorul acesteia
Scris de virgil Mar 14 Ian 2020, 09:27

» Distribuția vitezelor într-un gaz omogen la echilibru termodinamic
Scris de CAdi Dum 12 Ian 2020, 09:44

» Problemă despre gauri negre
Scris de gafiteanu Sam 04 Ian 2020, 18:58

» Ce este cu moderatorul?
Scris de gafiteanu Sam 04 Ian 2020, 02:07

» Alexandru Duru Quebec Canada
Scris de virgil_48 Joi 02 Ian 2020, 12:05

» Urări de sărbători
Scris de scanteitudorel Mier 01 Ian 2020, 07:19

» Daci nemuritori
Scris de virgil Lun 30 Dec 2019, 18:02

Top postatori
virgil (9752)
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
CAdi (8092)
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
virgil_48 (7227)
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
Abel Cavaşi (7114)
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
gafiteanu (6766)
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
Razvan (5746)
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
curiosul (5588)
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
Pacalici (5571)
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
scanteitudorel (4744)
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
negativ (3044)
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 

Cei care creeaza cel mai des subiecte noi
Pacalici
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
Abel Cavaşi
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
curiosul
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
CAdi
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
Dacu
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
Razvan
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
meteor
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
scanteitudorel
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
virgil
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
gafiteanu
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 

Cei mai activi postatori ai lunii
Dacu
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
virgil_48
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
mm
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
virgil
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
Abel Cavaşi
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
gafiteanu
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
Forever_Man
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
negativ
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
eugen
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
masondillon
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 

Cei mai activi postatori ai saptamanii
virgil_48
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
Abel Cavaşi
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 
Dacu
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_lcapNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Voting_barNew photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Vote_rcap 

Flux RSS


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Spune şi altora
Cine este conectat?
In total sunt 7 utilizatori conectati: 0 Inregistrati, 0 Invizibil si 7 Vizitatori

Nici unul

Recordul de utilizatori conectati a fost de 49, Dum 20 Mar 2011, 14:29

New photographs/New proofs

Pagina 1 din 3 1, 2, 3  Urmatorul

In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Mar 09 Dec 2008, 19:53

Rezumarea primului mesaj :

Pozele incredible, senzationale facute din Grimsby, cu zoom:

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 TorontoSkyline_small

33 MILES - 52.8 KILOMETERS AWAY, 55 METER CURVATURE ABSOLUTELY NONEXISTENT

WE CAN SEE CLEARLY THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE OPPOSING SHORELINE

NOW THE ZOOM:

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 TorontoSkyline_large

TO SEE THE FULL VIEW PLEASE ACCESS:

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Favourites/TorontoSkyline_large.jpg

THE SITE: http://www.weatherandsky.com/Favourites/TorontoSkyline.html

This image of the Toronto Skyline was taken from 33 miles away across Lake Ontario with a Canon 300D and Sky-Watcher Equinox 80mm APO Telescope
Copyright Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn

To see those complete details, you'd have to be at an altitude of at least 220 meters, and, even in that case, you'd clearly see the ascending/descending slopes, with the curvature in-between.

There is no geographical point of reference/building with the height of 220 meters, in either St. Catharines/Grimsby, 52.8 km distance from Toronto.
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos


New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de Abel Cavaşi la data de Sam 24 Ian 2009, 07:55

Încerc să-ţi reamintesc că suntem pe un forum românesc. Dacă scrii în engleză, vei lăsa impresia că nu asupra conţinutului mesajelor tale vrei să atragi atenţia, ci asupra altor chestiuni.

Abel Cavaşi
Fondator
Fondator

Numarul mesajelor : 7114
Data de inscriere : 28/02/2008

http://abelcavasi.blogspot.com/

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Dum 25 Ian 2009, 16:29

Daca electron scrie in engleza, ce sa facem? electron, scrie si tu in limba romana, ca sa-i facem pe plac lui Abel...

De aceea iti voi raspunde in romana...de acord?

Really? Pardon, zau? Cum asa visible? Ia sa vedem, cat de visible...

Pentru inceput, sa mergem pe Beamer Falls...treci prea repede cu vederea chestiunile astea...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037881/

Titlul pozei: View of Grimsby from the Escarpment at Beamer Falls Conservation Area.

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 343037881_497327a9d6_o

ACUM POZA FACUTA CHIAR DE PE BEAMER FALLS CONSERVATION AREA:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/

Titlul pozei: As seen from Beamer Falls Conservation Area

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 53037827_fdb83b96bd_b

INALTIMEA BEAMER FALLS: 45 METRI

Beamer’s Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.

PESTE 53 KM, CURBURA ESTE DE 55 DE METRI; ADICA DACA PAMANTUL AR FI FOST ROTUND, AM FI AVUT, DE LA 45 DE METRI ALTITUDINE, O PANTA ASCENDENTA, 10 METRI ADITIONALI PANA LA VARFUL CURBURII, SI AM VEDEA DOAR PORTIUNILE CLADIRILOR DIN TORONTO CARE AU PESTE 65 DE METRI.

DAR IN ACEASTA POZA, (electron), VEDEM CLAR CA NU EXISTA NICI UN FEL DE CURBURA, NICI UN METRU PANA LA TORONTO, NICI CURBURA DE 55 DE METRI, NICI VREO PANTA ASCENDENTA...

Mai ai ceva de spus?

Mai departe.

Iata trei poze succesive, facute de la aceeasi inaltime, plaja St. Catharines, care iti vor demonstra ca nu exista curbura de 55 de metri, preconizata de teoria dumitale, in care crezi orbeste...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Pirate-ship-5137

Se observa doar varful CN Tower...un aparat de calitate slaba...sa vedem ce se poate face cu ceva mai bun...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Mirage-across-the-lake-5112

Ce zici? Insa I am not done yet...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 072bb88a_0020000203427_00_600

53 km, 2 meters, we get BD = 180 meters; substracting 90 (we can see at least four meters of the roof top) from 180 we get again 90 meters. ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN GIVEN THE ROUND EARTH CURVATURE!

Ai priceput? Sky Dome are 89 de metri inaltime, iar formula noastra ne da, h = 2 metri, BD = 180 de metri; si atunci exista o diferenta de 90 de metri intre ce se poate vedea si teoria imposibila a pamantului rotund.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/

Iata si Toronto skyline ca sa vezi ca totul arata asa cum trebuie:

http://www.vignetted.com/images/200705/20070510_sm.jpg
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/77/69/23446977.jpg

Deci, fa-ti temele...si nu mai posta insinuari (false)...

Kathy Hepburn locuieste in Grimsby, o gasesti pe directory al acelui oras...

Uite site-urile ei:


http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html
(from Grimsby)

http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/LakeViews.html
(she says here Niagara Escarpment, which is 20-25 meters above lake level)

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Favourites/TorontoSkyline.html

Pai pune 55 de km (53 + 2, adica trebuie sa mergi inland alti doi kilometri ca sa ajungi la stancile de 170 de metri inaltime), si restul datelor si vei obtine 237 de metri; pentru 53 km obtii 220 de metri.

Tu nu stii sa socotesti? 33 miles = 52.8 km, exact distanta Grimsby - Toronto, daca ar fi fost facuta pe lac, atunci nu ar fi avut unde sa se deplaseze, decat pe puntea unui vas, deci o inaltime cu mult sub cei 55 de metri de curbura...

No sir, from 170 meters, nu poti scapa de curbura, de panta descendenta...

Intra pe: http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html si ai sa vezi de unde am pus pozele, facute din Grimsby...cuvintele autoarei...

I am not assuming anything; I told you what the landscape looks like: avem 20 de metri Niagara Escarpment, dupa aceea stancile Beamer Falls (45 metri), asta e situatia in Grimsby...

Hai sa vedem din nou pozele aferente, vedem clar TOATA PORTIUNEA CLADIRILOR DE LA BAZA LA VARF:

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 673e74d0_0010000368416_00_600

Vedem pana si luminile de pe mica insula din fata Toronto se vad...nici un fel de curbura de 55 de metri...ca sa vezi acele detalii, trebuie sa ascensionezi la cel putin 220 de metri...si nu poti scapa de panta ascendenta...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 TorontoDay

Conform Ms. Hepburn, facut in Grimsby, iarasi vedem toate cladirile, top to bottom, fara nici un fel de curbura...vedem pana si insulita din fata Toronto...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 312939439_ef682e2d8a_o

Toronto seen from Grimsby; fara nici un fel de curbura, ca sa vezi acele detalii, pana si mica insulita, trebuie sa te afli la 220 de metri...

Ai renuntat la lacul Michigan? Pai ce facem maestre? Crezi ca te las asa?

Click on the article (vezi mai sus) and you will read on...

From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Those residents saw those buildings because, ngb, the surface of the lake Michigan is completely flat.

sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Numarul mesajelor : 795
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Dum 25 Ian 2009, 16:43

Ce zici, marim miza? Adica extindem distanta la 1000 de km, te tine bracinarul?

Tungusk, Siberia, 1908, Iunie 30, 7:14 am

Explozia de Tunguks a fost cauzata de fulgerul globular emis de laboratorul lui Nikola Tesla, vezi de exemplu:

Tunguska Tesla

Tesla's Wireless Power Transmitter and the Tunguska Explosion of 1908 The French .... Bursting into the lab Tesla demanded to know why his assistant had ...
www.scribd.com/doc/6317667/Tunguska-Tesla - 133k - În Cache - Pagini similare

Laboratorul de a unde a fost efectuat experimentul Tungusk:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/starting%20pages.htm
http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/teslaweapons.htm

Toti copacii aflati direct sub epicentrul exploziei au ramas in picioare, insa au fost impinsi in pamant la circa sapte metri adancime.

The inhabitants of Central Siberia saw the fall and explosion of the meteorite over an area with a radius of 600-1000 km.

Explozia a avut loc la aproximativ sase (6) kilometri inaltime...deasupra raului Tungusk...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Sa-r05a

NU NUMAI CA A FOST VAZUTA EXPLOZIA, DAR SI TRAIECTORIA FULGERULUI GLOBULAR...din Irkustk, Siberia, 1000 km departare.

The first report of the explosion was in the Irkutsk paper dated July 2, 1908, published two days after the explosion:
...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash, not like thunder, but as if from the fall of large stones or from gunfire was heard. All the buildings shook and at the same time a forked tongue of flames broke through the cloud.
All the inhabitants of the village ran out into the street in panic. The old women wept, everyone thought that the end of the world was approaching...

IRKUTSK SE AFLA LA 1000 KM DEPARTARE DE TUNGUSKA...CURBURA FIIND DE 19,5 KM...IAR OBSTACOLUL VIZUAL DE 67 KM (PUNE H = 455 METRI, VEI OBTINE BD = 67.5 KM) NU S-AR FI PUTUT VEDEA ABSOLUT NIMIC, NICI TRAIECTORIA, NICI EXPLOZIA PROPRIU-ZISA...IAR PENTRU A VEDEA CEVA DINCOLO DE CURBURA, AR FI NEVOIE DE O EXPLOZIE LA CEL PUTIN 68 DE KM DEASUPRA SOLULUI...NU EXISTA CURBURA INTRE IRKUTSK/LACUL BAIKAL SI TUNGUSKA...NICI UN METRU...

Crezi ca ai scapat? Nicidecum...te las fara nimic pe tine...marim distanta la peste 7000 de km...

LA DOAR CATEVA MINUTE DE LA EXPLOZIE, SE PUTEA CITEA ZIARUL DE SEARA LA LONDRA CA LA LUMINA ZILEI, SA FACEAU POZE FARA FLASH LA STOCKHOLM, IATA RELATARILE:

Some people saw massive, silvery clouds and brilliant, colored sunsets on the horizon, whereas others witnessed luminescent skies at night—Londoners, for instance, could plainly read newsprint at midnight without artificial lights.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-tunguska-mystery-100-years-later

On the night of 30 June and 1 July, the sky throughout Europe was strangely bright. Throughout the United Kingdom, over 3000 miles from the point of impact, it was possible to play cricket and read newspapers by the glow from the night sky.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/148819-Tunguska-the-Horns-of-the-Moon-and-Evolution

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/tunguska_reconstructn.htm

OBSTACOLUL VIZUAL INTRE LONDRA SI TUNGUSK AJUNGE LA PESTE 9000 DE KM; NICI O OGLINDA MAGICA TINUTA DEASUPRA PAMANTULUI LA 9000 KM NU AR FI FOST DE AJUNS; INTENSITATEA ACELEI EXPLOZII A FOST EXTREM DE PUTERNICA, DE ACEEA A FOST VAZUTA SI OBSERVATA TOCMAI DE LA IRKUTSK SI LONDRA...PENTRU CA NU EXISTA CURBURA DE 1000+ INTRE LONDRA SI TUNGUSK, INTELEGI?
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokan la data de Sam 07 Feb 2009, 14:01

So, sandokhan, I'm still waiting for your answers. Do you want to quietly bail out of this topic?

sandokan
Statornic
Statornic

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 53
Puncte : 12186
Data de inscriere : 21/01/2009
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Sam 07 Feb 2009, 19:38

@Abel Cavaşi a scris:Încerc să-ţi reamintesc că suntem pe un forum românesc. Dacă scrii în engleză, vei lăsa impresia că nu asupra conţinutului mesajelor tale vrei să atragi atenţia, ci asupra altor chestiuni.

{editat de administrator}? Nu vezi ca ni se cere sa discutam peacefully in limba romana? Ce {editat de administrator} vrei sa zici cu bailing out? Eu, bailing out? {editat de administrator}!

Ti-am aratat, pas cu pas, fotografie cu fotografie, ca nu exista curbura peste lacul Ontario; te faci ca nu vezi? Lasa talentele, ai ceva de spus, say in romana, si mergem mai departe...ce zici de locuitorii din Irkutsk sau de gentlemen from London care citeau ziarul de seara afara la lumina exploziei de la Tungusk?

Uite, looky here, for you:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037881/

View of Grimsby from the Escarpment at Beamer Falls Conservation Area.

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 343037881_497327a9d6_o

Now, the extraordinary photograph taken from Beamer Falls itself:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/

As seen from Beamer Falls Conservation Area

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 53037827_fdb83b96bd_b

Beamer’s Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.

One of the best proofs that there is no curvature over lake Ontario; from 45 meters, we need another 10 meters just to reach the top of the curvature, right in front of you, and then miss the bottom 65 meters of the buildings in Toronto (the visual obstacle). But there is no curvature, no midpoint 55 meter obstacle, the Toronto downtown buildings visible top to bottom.

What do you say we visit lake Michigan?

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=122D5519C959F390&p_docnum=1&p_theme=gatehouse&s_site=HSHH&p_product=HSHH

Oh say can you see?
When conditions are just right, some insist, you can see the lights across Lake Michigan from Holland
LESA INGRAHAM
Staff writer

Can you see Milwaukee from Holland?

It sounds preposterous to some, who insist the curvature of the Earth makes it impossible to see that far across Lake Michigan in any circumstances. But some lake-watchers insist that when conditions are just right, city lights from the other side can be seen peeking above the horizon.

Park Township resident Herman Kanis said it can and did happen Monday night.

Enjoying Memorial Day with some friends at his home on Lakeshore Drive near Riley Street, he looked out from his deck overlooking the lake and saw something he had never seen before -- Wisconsin.

"I said to my friend that it can't be a boat because it was a big rectangle with lights on either side of it," Kanis said Tuesday. "So we kept watching, and it didn't move.

"As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights."

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

"With the binoculars we could make out three different communities," Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

"We got two calls last night and people had me on speaker phone because they were debating whether they were actually seeing this," Reed said. "I've seen it from Holland twice myself."

It is roughly 83 miles as the crow flies from Holland to Milwaukee and 78.5 miles from Holland to Racine, Wis., Reed said.

National Weather Service meteorologist John Kowaleski said conditions Monday night may have made it possible to see across Lake Michigan. The lake was calm and the sky was generally clear, and the temperature over the lake was warmer higher in the atmosphere than at the surface.

"This tends to bend the visual range of seeing across the lake," Kowaleski said. "I guess it's possible (to see Wisconsin)."

Under such conditions, lights from the Wisconsin side could reflect off clouds and water and be seen from the Michigan side of the lake, he said.

But not everyone believes that Wisconsin lights can be seen from the Holland shoreline.

Park Township resident Gordon Zuverink, a charter boat captain on Lake Michigan for more than 15 years, said the shape of the earth prohibits seeing any Wisconsin city from shores near Holland.

"It's not possible. There aren't any buildings in Milwaukee that are tall enough to be seen over the curvature of the Earth," Zuverink said. "You would never, never be able to see it."

Local shipwatcher Bob Vande Vusse said he's never heard of people seeing Milwaukee from the Holland shoreline. He admits thathe's not a scientist or geographer, but he says he's unsure even perfect atmospheric conditions can allow for such a sighting.

"It may be possible to see a glow from a ship or something, but that's a long haul to see," Vande Vusse said. "It almost seems that the curvature of the Earth that it wouldn't be possible."

Vande Vusse, however, doesn't doubt officials who say the sighting is possible.

"If they say that it can be done, I can't argue with that," he said.

Tom O'Bryan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said workers at his Grand Haven office have heard reports of the sightings of Milwaukee's lights from West Michigan before.

"It doesn't happen much, but when the conditions are exactly right atmospherically I've heard people have seen all the way over there," O'Bryan said. "I've never seen it, but I've been told that when the temperature, humidity and everything else is in line that you can."

Having lived on the lake for 11 years, Kanis wasn't sure if he would get the treat of seeing Wisconsin lights.

"The gentleman we bought the place from said he saw it twice in 50 years," Kanis said. "We're glad we got to see it in 11."

Staff writer Nate Reens contributed to this report.

WHAT A VIEW: Herman and Sue Kanis of Park Township view Lake Michigan at sunset Tuesday. Herman Kanis maintains he could see lights from Wisconsin from his deck Monday night.


Let me take you through the steps, in the event the link cannot be accessed:

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/ (from there press Search our archives, top right corner)

We are here now: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=HSHH&p_theme=gatehouse&p_action=keyword

Click on search by date, then use the above datelines, May 28 2003 to May 29 2003; use the search words Oh can you see

And here we are: 1. Oh say can you see?
May 28, 2003 •• 727 words •• ID: 122D5519C91CF260
Can you see Milwaukee from Holland? It sounds preposterous to some, who insist the curvature of the Earth makes it impossible to see that far across Lake Michigan in any circumstances. But some lake-watchers insist that when conditions are just right, city lights from the other side can be seen peeking above the horizon. Park Township resident Herman Kanis said it can and did happen Monday night. Enjoying Memorial Day with some friends at his home on Lakeshore Drive near Riley Street...

Click on the article and you will read on...

From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Those residents saw those buildings because, ngb, the surface of the lake Michigan is completely flat.

SO, WTF DO YOU MEAN BAILING OUT? YOU DID NOT ANSWER ANYTHING FROM THESE MESSAGES, REMEMBER?

HERE ARE THE MESSAGES YOU IGNORED SO FAR WHEREIN I ANSWERED ALL YOUR QUESTIONS STEP BY STEP, AS YOU REQUIRED:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43.htm#414

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43.htm#403

DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND LEAVE BEHIND EMPTY WORDS, WON'T WORK WITH ME HERE!
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokan la data de Sam 07 Feb 2009, 20:37

You started this thread in English. Even its title is translated. So I'll continue using English until the moderators forbid it. Using English is better because like this more people can see and verify what we say. Wink

Now, if you don't want to bail out and if you want to have a meaningful discussion stop spouting full pages of junk and answer the pending questions:

1) How do you know that Ms.Hepburn's photo was taken from a small height? What proof do you have?
2) Why are there photos where the buildings are hidden partially by the water? How do you explain that with a flat lake?

sandokan
Statornic
Statornic

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 53
Puncte : 12186
Data de inscriere : 21/01/2009
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Dum 08 Feb 2009, 16:07

You are showing to everybody your true reasons for posting here...the opening message was quite clear about all the facts, I am very careful when using words, rest assured about it...

Now, our English visitor from stiintaazi.ro, what language did you use to register here?

Here is the registration form in Romanian, which you had to use to post messages:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/profile.forum?mode=register

Si atunci, mancati-as de ce incerci cu engleza? Crezi ca nu recunosc persoanele care scriu aici?

Here is the actual data you had to fill out, all in Romanian:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/profile.forum?mode=register&agreed=true

I want to make sure you understand what took place here: you had some questions, which WERE ALL ANSWERED, COMPLETELY, HERE:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43.htm#414

THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU IGNORE WHAT I AM WRITING: IS IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS, AND I AM DESTROYING YOUR EVERY (POSSIBLE) ARGUMENT?

HERE IS THE LAKE MICHIGAN STORY, 321 METERS IN CURVATURE, BUILDINGS IN THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES BEING SEEN FROM 128 KM DISTANCE:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43.htm#404

Now, your questions, marked by you as #1 and #2, were answered right in the first message:

Your question #1:

1) How do you know that Ms.Hepburn's photo was taken from a small height? What proof do you have?

WHERE DID YOU SEE ME (OR ANYBODY ELSE) SAY THAT PHOTO WAS TAKEN FROM A SMALL HEIGHT (WHATEVER THAT WOULD BE IN YOUR VISION)?

HERE IS THE ACTUAL MESSAGE:

This image of the Toronto Skyline was taken from 33 miles away across Lake Ontario with a Canon 300D and Sky-Watcher Equinox 80mm APO Telescope
Copyright Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn

To see those complete details, you'd have to be at an altitude of at least 220 meters, and, even in that case, you'd clearly see the ascending/descending slopes, with the curvature in-between.

There is no geographical point of reference/building with the height of 220 meters, in either St. Catharines/Grimsby, 52.8 km distance from Toronto.


So, you simply made up the wording, to go along...

Your question #2:

2) Why are there photos where the buildings are hidden partially by the water? How do you explain that with a flat lake?

What do you mean partially? What height do you have in mind?

Let us take the zoom as an example:

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Favourites/TorontoSkyline_large.jpg

WE CAN SEE THE LIGHTS FROM THE SMALL ISLAND IN FRONT OF TORONTO, ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO IN GRIMSBY: HERE IS THE STORY IN GRIMSBY...we have the actual city with the Niagara Escarpment cliffs (20-25 meters), then we ascend to the Beamer Falls Conservation Area, 45 meters in height; we have to go inland, 2 km, to reach the Niagara cliffs, 170 meters in height, even from there (but now we are outside Grimsby), the first 5-6 meters would be blocked from view, not the case here.

Remember the other zoom taken from Grimsby:

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 673e74d0_0010000368416_00_600

LOOK AT THE LIGHTS OF THE SMALL ISLAND IN FRONT OF TORONTO, EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE ZOOM ABOVE...

So, do your homework, because, so far, you have been embarrassing yourself here...I don't mind being asked questions, but you are still trying to insinuate (falsely) your way around here...
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokan la data de Dum 08 Feb 2009, 18:27

@sandokhan a scris:You are showing to everybody your true reasons for posting here...
I'm obviously showing that your so called proofs are nothing more than lies and laughably and wrongly interpreted data. You've noticed that? You're very observant!

the opening message was quite clear about all the facts, I am very careful when using words, rest assured about it...
Yes, you somewhat forgot to say that you have no idea what height had the camera when the photo was taken, because from a sufficient height, as the nearby hills provide, there is no problem in seeing the buildings over the lake. Smile

Now, your questions, marked by you as #1 and #2, were answered right in the first message:

Your question #1:

1) How do you know that Ms.Hepburn's photo was taken from a small height? What proof do you have?

WHERE DID YOU SEE ME (OR ANYBODY ELSE) SAY THAT PHOTO WAS TAKEN FROM A SMALL HEIGHT (WHATEVER THAT WOULD BE IN YOUR VISION)?

HERE IS THE ACTUAL MESSAGE:

This image of the Toronto Skyline was taken from 33 miles away across Lake Ontario with a Canon 300D and Sky-Watcher Equinox 80mm APO Telescope
Copyright Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn

To see those complete details, you'd have to be at an altitude of at least 220 meters, and, even in that case, you'd clearly see the ascending/descending slopes, with the curvature in-between.
I asked you how did you compute the "220" height, the actual numbers that you've used. You still avoid doing so.

There is no geographical point of reference/building with the height of 220 meters, in either St. Catharines/Grimsby, 52.8 km distance from Toronto.
That might be the case, but there are some hills 170m in height, which do allow for the full view. Try to compute again the minimum height necessary for that photo. Smile


Your question #2:

2) Why are there photos where the buildings are hidden partially by the water? How do you explain that with a flat lake?

What do you mean partially? What height do you have in mind?
Come on, are you so naive ? There are enough photos, brought by yourself, where only the highest part of the heighest buildings in Toronto are seen over the lake. How is that possible if the lake were flat?

So, do your homework, because, so far, you have been embarrassing yourself here...I don't mind being asked questions, but you are still trying to insinuate (falsely) your way around here...
I'm not the one spouting neverending and repeating junk, in a laughable hope that the issue is lost in the process. Start answering the questions presented here, if you care about embaressment. Wink

PS: as for using English, is there some rule of this forum forbidding it?

sandokan
Statornic
Statornic

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 53
Puncte : 12186
Data de inscriere : 21/01/2009
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Dum 08 Feb 2009, 19:23

No, the true reason is that you are incapable of understanding the physics involved in a heliocentric planetary system; you stubbornly stick to using the same phrases which show you have no idea or understanding of what we are discussing.

Are you dumb or is something else going on? Have I not answered in details where that formula came from?

Now, the formula is simple:

https://redcdn.net/ihimizer/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif (courtesy of stiintazi.ro/forum)

We need to find the segment BD; first, by using the law of cosines, we get:

ED^2 = OE^2 + OD^2 - 2(OE)(OD)(cos s/R)

Then, immediately, we obtain:

BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF []

If you put 53 km (Grimsby itself) or 55 km (from outside Grimsby) you will get 220 meters, respectively, 237 meters.

Now, in Grimsby THERE ARE NO BUILDINGS OR A LANDSCAPE WITH THE HEIGHT OF 220 METERS. AND MS. HEPBURN CLEARLY STATES SHE TOOK THE PHOTOS FROM GRIMSBY. IF YOU GO 2 KM INLAND, YOU ARE OUTSIDE GRIMSBY, BUT EVEN FROM THERE, YOU CAN ASCEND JUST TO 170 METERS, NOT ENOUGH TO SEE THOSE LIGHTS, AND EVEN THEN, YOU COULD NOT MISS THE DESCENDING SLOPE OF THE CURVATURE. PLEASE COMPARE THE ZOOM WITH USUAL TORONTO SKYLINE PHOTOS, THE SAME THING, STOP PRETENDING OTHERWISE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO? TO GO TO 55 KM, OUTSIDE OF GRIMSBY TO TRY TO USE SUCH AN ARGUMENT?

YOU CANNOT. HERE IS WHY. MS HEPBURN CLEARLY STATES SHE WAS AT 33 MILES FROM TORONTO, HERE IS THE PROOF:

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Favourites/TorontoSkyline.html

HERE ARE HER OWN WORDS:

This image of the Toronto Skyline was taken from 33 miles away across Lake Ontario with a Canon 300D and Sky-Watcher Equinox 80mm APO Telescope
Copyright Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn

33 miles = 52.8 km

THE CLIFFS HAVING 170 METERS ARE AT 55 KM DISTANCE; 2 KM INLAND, SHE STATES CLEARLY SHE DID NOT GO OVERTHERE, NOW YOU UNDERSTAND?



YOU CLEARLY DO NOT WANT TO ACCEPT WHAT THESE PHOTOS CLEARLY SHOW TO YOU...

You STUPIDLY wrote: There are enough photos, brought by yourself, where only the highest part of the heighest buildings in Toronto are seen over the lake. How is that possible if the lake were flat?

You see how mischevious you are in using words? No, these following pictures show exactly there is no 55 meter curvature, look carefully:

First, we visit the beach at St.Catharines...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Pirate-ship-5137
One can barely see the top of the CN tower, a poor quality camera...but now...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Mirage-across-the-lake-5112

A larger portion of the buildings...a better camera...and now, the top of the Sky Dome...86 meters in height...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 072bb88a_0020000203427_00_600

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/

Same beach...2 meters in height...using our formula we get: BD = 180 METERS, you get it?

There is a difference of 90 meters between the accepted round earth measure of 180 meters (under which you could see nothing), and the visible portion of the top of the Sky Dome...

Who is embarrassing himself now? I think it is you for having a mediocre belief in the round earth fantasy tale...

Here is a panorama of the Toronto skyline:

http://www.vignetted.com/images/200705/20070510_sm.jpg
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg

In Grimsby, the highest altitude you can ascend to is 45 METERS, let us prove again there is no curvature between Grimsby and Toronto:

Beamer Falls Conservation Area 45 meters in height:

Beamer’s Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037881/

View of Grimsby from the Escarpment at Beamer Falls Conservation Area.

AND NOW THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM BEAMER FALLS CONSERVATION AREA, 45 METERS IN ALTITUDE; FROM THAT HEIGHT, ON A ROUND EARTH, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THE 10 METER REMAINING PORTION OF THE CURVATURE, AND NOTHING UNDER 65 METER OF THE OPPOSITE SHORELINE.

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 53037827_fdb83b96bd_b

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/ (as seen from Beamer Falls Conservation Area)

THE ONLY JUNK IS INSIDE YOUR BRAIN; THE PHOTOS SHOW CLEARLY YOU ARE MISTAKEN...

THE TORONTO BUILDINGS TOP TO BOTTOM, WE CAN SEE EVEN THE SMALL ISLAND LIGHTS:

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 673e74d0_0010000368416_00_600

Taken from Grimsby, stated so by Ms. Hepburn herself; the highest altitude there is 45 meters...

The following photo taken from Grimsby (so states the author):

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 312939439_ef682e2d8a_o

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/sizes/o/

The following picture taken from the Niagara Escarpment in Grimsby (20-25 meters in height), so states Ms. Hepburn herself:

http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/LakeViews.html
The Niagara Escarpment is oriented almost parallel to the southwestern Lake Ontario shoreline. In many locations, the cliffs of this escarpment are up to 20 m high.

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 IMG_0734

YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE MY FRIEND; HOW EMBARRASSING IS IT TO IGNORE THE DATA I AM PRESENTING TO YOU FOR THE FOURTH TIME?

LAKE MICHIGAN

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43.htm#404

From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Those residents saw those buildings because, ngb, the surface of the lake Michigan is completely flat.


Ultima editare efectuata de catre sandokhan in Dum 08 Feb 2009, 19:37, editata de 2 ori
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Dum 08 Feb 2009, 19:24

There is no rule against english as far as I can see; just the founder of the site himself cautioning us to speak in romanian; we should obey his requirements...
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Lun 09 Feb 2009, 17:30

Deci, putem continua discutia in romana, e mai placut (a more poetic language)...

Da-mi voie sa-ti aduc la cunostinta cam ce se intampla pe aici, in caz ca nu te-ai prins deja...

Ai postat niste mesaje, in care ai cerut anumite informatii, iata mesajul tau aici:
http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43.htm#407

Apoi, dl. Abel Cavasi ne-a atentionat sa folosim limba romana...si eu ti-am raspuns la TOT ce ai adresat acolo, aici:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43.htm#414

Si atunci sa intelegem ca nu esti in toate mintile sa postezi asa ceva: So, sandokhan, I'm still waiting for your answers. Do you want to quietly bail out of this topic?

Ai cerut acolo distante, formule, adrese, si alte lucruri, care in urmatorul mesaj ti-au fost aduse la cunostinta; nu aveai de ce sa postezi tampenii de genul, I'm still waiting for answers...

Nu ai raspuns deloc la tot ce am postat pe tema inexistentei curburii la suprafata peste lacul Michigan; adica eu sa-ti raspund la toate intrebarile tale (la care raspunsesem deja in mesajele initiale), si tu sa faci pick and choose? Nu merge asa...

Nu ai raspuns deloc la faptul ca intre Irkutsk si Tungusk nu exista curbura, sau intre Londra si Tungusk; pune mana pe un glob geografic, localizeaza acolo raul Tungusk si Londra ai sa vezi ca habar nu ai ce declari pe aici maestre...o explozie care a avut loc la doar 6-8 km deasupra solului, NU AR FI AVUT CUM SA FIE OBSERVATA DECAT PE O SUPRAFATA DE CEL MULT CATEVA SUTE DE KM PATRATI, AR FI INTERVENIT IMEDIAT PROBLEMA CURBURII...ceea ce se pare ca nu vrei sa intelegi sau ignori cu buna stiinta...

Uite aici detaliile pentru indoctrinati ca tine:
http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43-15.htm#415

What do you use as arguments for your round earth theory? So said Newton and so said Nasa, don't you?

But Newton never used the words attractive gravitation, see the direct quotes by Neftone himself:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/aether-pressure-i-inexistenta-atractiei-gravitationale-t44.htm

And all Nasa missions were completely falsified and faked, A-Z proofs here:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/hubloul-fermecat-t51.htm

What you are showing us here is your level (by you I mean all round earth proponents) of utter ignorance...you just have to look at the trajectories of the clouds to see the truth...the Earth is absolutely stationary, complete demonstration here:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/pamantul-stationar-traiectoria-norilor-t50.htm

And you know all the facts already about the impossibility of the big bang/string theories...

Now, let us visit the Gibraltar strait, shall we?

Strait of Gibraltar - 13 km - 3.31 meters curvature...

We would have an ascending slope, a 5 meter visual obstacle (1.80 m height of the photographer), and a descending slope all the way to Morocco...

Standing on the european beach, there would be no way to see the details of the opposing shore, where the waves meet the beach, etc.

TWO WELL-KNOWN DOCUMENTARIES:

1. The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...

2. Islamic History of Europe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRSEFMCqK7I

Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline

Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...

Between 3:19 - 3:22, and 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore.

Two photos taken on the spanish beach, same thing, no curvature...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 072b3c3c_0020000203299_00_600

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 072b3126_0020000203298_00_600

No curvature whatsoever, no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature...

Hai si pe English Channel...

Original photos on flickr.com: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9979943/Dove-Dover

Photographers right on the Cap Gris Beach:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b29eb_0020000203086_00_600.jpg

And now the extraordinary photograph, no curvature whatsoever over 34 km; the complete details of the White Cliffs Dover, the ship is not part of either an ascending or descending slope...

REMEMBER THAT FROM THOSE 2 METERS ON THE FRENCH BEACH, YOU CANNOT SEE ANYTHING UNDER 65 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH, BUT HERE WE SEE THE COMPLETE FLATNESS OF THE WATER:

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 072b89d5_0020000203085_00_600

ALTE DOUA POZE FACUTE TOT PE PLAJA CAP GRIS NEZ: TWO OTHER PHOTOS TAKEN RIGHT ON THE CAP GRIS NEZ BEACH:

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 White_cliffs

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 1469024243_db64cfd565_o

WE CAN SEE EVEN THE SHIP PASSING BY, ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE ON A ROUND EARTH...


Now, let us return to the lake Ontario...

All the details top to bottom, even the small islands in front of Toronto being seen clearly, nothing missing; in Grimsby there is no 220 meter point of reference, if we go 2.5 km inland, we need to ascend to 237 meters, no landform of that height exists there:

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 TorontoDay

No curvature, no slopes, everything in plain view, even the small islands...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 312939439_ef682e2d8a_o

So shut up, and think for a while...I know very well what I write, you homo ignoramus...
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokan la data de Mar 10 Feb 2009, 13:19

Ha-ha-ha!! Laughing

I think the rules forbid the never-ending repetitions. Your junk is too long to loose time reading. When you'll be able to follow a straight discussion, come back to writing on forums.

As for the buildings that are hidden by the "mountain of water", you can talk all you want about "poor quality cameras", nobody is stupid enough to swallow such laughable arguments.

I had a good laugh here. When you're ready to talk without all the repeating and useless junk, maybe we'll continue talking.

Ha-ha-ha!!! Laughing

sandokan
Statornic
Statornic

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 53
Puncte : 12186
Data de inscriere : 21/01/2009
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Mar 10 Feb 2009, 19:57

Ti s-a explicat deja ca tu cunosti f. bine limba romana, de vreme ce ai fost obligat sa folosesti aceasta limba pentru inregistrarea de pe acest site; vrei sa continui doar in limba engleza, cu toate ca administratorul acestui site a spus ca doreste sa conversam in limba romana?

As I have already told you, the only junk is inside your head, remove it and you will breathe with more ease...

You have not addressed anything in the topics raised here: no curvature over the Strait of Gibraltar, no curvature over the English Channel, no curvature whatsoever over the lake Ontario, no curvature between Irkutsk and Tunguska, no curvature between London and Tunguska...

It is clear that you are not here for a serious debate, which you have lost before making a single post; I walk all over you anyday and anytime, because you do not have at your disposal a single proof for the rotundity of the Earth.

The reason I repeat the photographs is because of your unbelief; they show clearly that there is no curvature over the portions shown, you have been offerred all the numbers and altitudes necessary, do not complain like a backward ignorant.

The numbers are very precise: from the beach located at St. Catharines, from that 2 meter height, you cannot see anything below 180 meters, yet we can see the rooftop of the Sky Dome (86 meters in height), absolutely impossible on a round earth.

Each and every photograph taken over the English Channel shows clearly a complete flat surface of the water, no ascending/descending slopes, with the entire view of the White Cliffs Dover in sight.

The people who lived in Irkustk in 1908 saw very clearly the actual explosion of that ball lightning located at 1000 km distance; the visual obstacle being more 67 km (67.5 km). The numbers speak for themselves.

Over a distance of 128 km, the people who live on the shore of Lake Michigan, in Holland, see the buildings of three different communities on the other side of the lake (128 km). The visual obstacle is well over 1000 meters, absolutely impossible to see something on a round earth.

No attractive gravitation, no spinning earth (see the cloud trajectory argument), no big bang or string theories, faked pictures/movies offerred by Nasa, this is what you have to show for proof, a completely false belief in a fairy tale: the round earth theory.

It is very clear that you do not understand the physics or the numbers involved here...let me remind you for the specific claim that you made...

FROM THAT BEACH IN ST. CATHARINES, AT THE 2 METER HEIGHT OF THE PHOTOGRAPHERS, YOU CANNOT SEE ANYTHING UNDER 180 METERS FROM THE OPPOSING SHORE (IN OUR CASE, TORONTO). The three photographs show succesively, using better and better quality cameras, the tip of the CN tower (400 meters + in height), some portions of the buildings, and the third photograph shows clearly the rooftop of the SkyDome, impossible on a round earth, the difference being 90 meters.

Here is the photograph from Beamer Falls, 45 meters in height: FROM THAT HEIGHT, ON A ROUND EARTH, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THE 10 METER REMAINING PORTION OF THE CURVATURE, AND NOTHING UNDER 65 METER OF THE OPPOSITE SHORELINE.

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 53037827_fdb83b96bd_b

THE DOWNTOWN TORONTO BUILDINGS COMPLETELY SEEN IN THEIR ENTIRETY, TOP TO BOTTOM, NO CURVATURE, NO MIDPOINT VISUAL OBSTACLE, NO ASCENDING SLOPE.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/ (as seen from Beamer Falls Conservation Area)

Beamer Falls Conservation Area 45 meters in height:

Beamer’s Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037881/

View of Grimsby from the Escarpment at Beamer Falls Conservation Area.

So, do your homework, and leave the empty-headed comments for some other time...won't work with me here...watch the trajectories of the clouds in the sky on any day...the best proof for the stationary earth...


Ultima editare efectuata de catre sandokhan in Joi 12 Feb 2009, 15:00, editata de 1 ori
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokan la data de Joi 12 Feb 2009, 10:35

@sandokhan a scris:watch the trajectories of the clouds in the sky on any day...the best proof for the stationary earth...
Ha-ha-ha! Laughing

"Stationary earth" ?!?!? This is pure gold! The most hilarious thing yet!
Never mind that this has nothing to do with the flatness (or lack thereof) of the lake Ontario, you still need to spout more and more junk... How funny!

But please make my day and tell me, this "stationary earth", with respect to what exactly is it ... "stationary" ?

Ha-ha-ha! Laughing

sandokan
Statornic
Statornic

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 53
Puncte : 12186
Data de inscriere : 21/01/2009
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Joi 12 Feb 2009, 14:51

With respect to the rest of the Universe, you dummy!!! Chiar asa de prost esti? Da-o incolo de treaba...

Not even today, after more than four hundred of heliocentrism theory being bombarded into every child's ear, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE EARTH IS MOVING ANYWHERE.

THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT, REVEALS CLEARLY THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY...but this fact was hidden from public view...

Here is Einstein himself acknowledging this fact:

Albert A. Michelson died on May 9, 1931 in Pasadena, California, (U.S.). Albert Einstein, in the same year, publicly paid tribute to Michelson's extensive contributions to science:


"My honored Dr. Michelson, it was you who led the physicists into new paths, and through your marvelous experimental work paved the way for the development of the theory of relativity."


... Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth... is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact...

The Foucault pendulum hoax, here in all its details:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/36777/view-posts/74394
http://www.neogen.ro/group/184/view-posts/190197

G. B. Airy's experiment (1871):

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

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

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

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

See also: http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/page17.htm

EITHER THE EARTH IS ROTATING, OR IS COMPLETELY STATIONARY WITH RESPECT TO THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE; THE TRAJECTORIES OF THE CLOUDS PROVE CLEARLY WE ARE ON A STATIONARY EARTH, THE COMPLETE PROOF/DETAILS:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/pamantul-stationar-traiectoria-norilor-t50.htm

FROM THERE:

The alleged rotation of the World, although never having been experimentally demonstrated, is simply taken as read by modern science. However, the World either rotates about an axis or it doesn't. There is no alternative scenario. If the World does spin, then the universe might still be geocentric, although it is doubtful that many would seriously believe it. On the other hand, if the World can be shown not to spin, then the heavens have to be centred on, and revolve diurnally about, an immovable World.

Conclusion

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis. Observations of daily celestial motion in this case show that the universe must be geocentric, or else geobounded.

GOT IT?

If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:

The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth’s surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:

If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.
Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach’s principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes – that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth – it defies either logic or observation.

If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.

IN MY CLASS YOU RECEIVE A FAILING GRADE IN PHYSICS, FOR IGNORANCE!!! DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Joi 12 Feb 2009, 15:37

My friend, more info for you...read carefully...

In 1887, Michelson and Morley did an experiment to detect any difference in the
speed of light between north-south travel and east-west travel. A difference in
speed was expected because they assumed that the Earth was orbiting the Sun in
a stationary aether. From our perspective on Earth, the aether would blow past
us like a wind in an east-west direction. Michelson and Morley reasoned that we
should notice changes in the speed of light in east-west travel, but fixed
speed in north-south travel. The experiment failed to measure any difference in
speed, no matter when and where they tried it. Scientists were baffled.

Rather than admitting the possibility that the earth was stationary with
respect to the aether, scientists dispensed with aether and claimed that the
speed of light was constant. In fact, the speed of light was claimed to be the
only constant in the universe, whereas mass, length, distance, time, and
anything else became relative. This became know as the Relativity theory. But
all the Michelson-Morley experiment showed was that aether wind was either too
small to measure or was non-existent. Michelson and Morley, however,
demonstrated nothing about the constancy of the speed of light through space.

Added to this is the experiment performed by Georges Sagnac. As I remarked in
another answer to the CAI Challenge, a writer for Physics Today writes: "One of
the most confusing relativistic effects - the Sagnac effect - appears in
rotating reference frames. (See Physics Today, October 1981, page 20) .
Observers in the nonrotating ECI inertial frame would not see a Sagnac effect.
Instead, they would see that receivers are moving while a signal is propagating
... Correcting for the Sagnac effect in the Earth-fixed frame is equivalent to
correcting for such receiver motion in the ECI frame..."

Yes, the author is right. It is "confusing." Unfortunately for him, the reason
it is "confusing" is that Relativity has never explained the Sagnac effect,
found by Georges Sagnac in 1913, nor its follow-up experimental verification
performed by Michelson-Gale-Pearson in 1925. In fact, according to Dean Turner
in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, he writes: "I pause to note that one
may scan Einstein's writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or
Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics textbooks
and of the 1971 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology... Such an
oversight in these distinguished encyclopedias constitutes a stinging
indictment of professional scientific reporting" (p. 44).

Why were they not mentioned in Einstein's writings? Simple. Because they give
experimental evidence for the falsity of Relativity theory. Einstein not only
did this with Sagnac and Michelson-Gale, he also did it with Joos, Ives,
Miller, Kennedy-Thorndike, and many other scientists who questioned or rejected
his theory based on the results of their verified experiments.

What is the Sagnac effect? It is the result of an experiment that showed the
earth to be in some type of movement against another substance. The "movement"
is termed "rotation" and the substance is some aether-type medium that
scientists had discarded when Einstein developed his Relativity in 1905. (Thus,
we can see why Einstein would have ignored Sagnac's results). But although
Einstein neglected its results, other scientists did not, including the author
of the article in Physics Today (May 2002).

Deci, my friend, you have no idea what you are talking about, since you have not studied any of the above well-known facts (well-known for those who have experience in the branch)...
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokan la data de Joi 12 Feb 2009, 15:50

@sandokhan a scris:With respect to the rest of the Universe, you dummy!!!
Ha-ha-ha! Laughing

"rest of the Universe"!?!?!? More gold! This is soooo funny!

All the things that we can see in the sky, stars, planets and so on, are moving with respect to the earth, so they are also moving with respect to the "rest of the Universe". What does that stationary "rest of the Universe" you are talking about consist of ?!?!?

You really made my day.

Ha-ha-ha! Laughing

IN MY CLASS YOU RECEIVE A FAILING GRADE IN PHYSICS, FOR IGNORANCE!!!

Luckily, I'm not part of your so called "class". lol!

PS: will you ever stop posting this never-ending junk?

sandokan
Statornic
Statornic

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 53
Puncte : 12186
Data de inscriere : 21/01/2009
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Joi 12 Feb 2009, 16:14

As I have told you, your physics is on the level of a illiterate fourth-grade student...here is why...

From the very beginning of modern physics, the inertial frame of reference question, occupied a central role; but it has NOT been answered even today, other than the aether theory; Einstein's STR is completely false, and the Michelson-Morley experiment was badly devised, it showed, THOUGH, that the Earth is completely stationary.

THE AETHER ITSELF IS THE INERTIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE PHYSICISTS HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR, THAT IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION...

The question is also important with relation to absolute frames of reference in physics. An ether signifies a fixed frame of reference that scientists can use in their measurements of the universe. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity says that no such frame of reference exists, i.e. all motion is relative. The finding of an ether would shatter that hypothesis.

Bai ingratule, here is the best bibliography for you:

http://www.astrosciences.info/NegativeGrav.htm
http://aero.stanford.edu/gtrpaper/gtr.html
http://www.halexandria.org/dward146.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/modusoperandi.htm
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/sciences.html

Our work suggests inertia is a property arising out of the vast, all-pervasive electromagnetic field we mentioned earlier, which is called the zero-point field (ZPF). The name comes from the fact that the field is held to exist in a vacuum-what is commonly thought of as "empty" space-even at the temperature of absolute zero, at which all thermal radiation is absent. The background energy of the vacuum serves as the reference, or zero point, for all processes. To understand how the ZPF might give rise to inertia, one must understand something about the nature of the field itself.

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/03/relativity_fraud_the_complicit.html

“There have been a variety of theories to describe electromagnetic waves (light) as excitations of some medium, quite in analogy to sonic waves which propagate in the medium air. This hypothetical medium was called the ether and it was supposed to be in rest in the absolute space-time frame. That is why this frame is also called ether frame sometimes. Since the establishment of the theory of special relativity it has become extremely unpopular among scientists to speak about”ether". However, we know today that electromagnetic waves are indeed excitations of some "medium". However, this medium is not a solid or a liquid in the classical sense, but it is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. Quantum field theorists found the name vacuum for it. Some people interpret the vacuum as space-time itself, but this does not cover the fact that its true nature still remains a mystery. Anyhow, the term quantum ether might be used to indicate a possible modern synthesis of both concepts.”

http://www.astrosciences.info/BTSOL.html
http://ldolphin.org/graps.html +++

Greselile din experimentul crucial Michelson-Morley pe:
Misktakes made in the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/36777/view-posts/74586

Einstein theory of relativity hoax:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/36777/view-posts/74516
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de mm la data de Joi 12 Feb 2009, 21:08

Am fost convins mereu ca te distrezi pe seama diferitilor forumisti cu cap patrat sustinand ca Pamantul e plat. Acum incep sa cred ca vorbesti serios. M-am gandit chiar care ar fi situatia care ar permite sa se intample asa ceva. Destul de surprins, am constatat ca e posibil intr-un anume fel. O anumita proiectie ocazionata de organul vederii, o anumita "sfericitate" aparenta a miniuniversului ce inconjoara fiecare sistem de referinta "de raza c" si chiar a deformarii reale a spatiului (si simultan a obiectelor din el) dupa cum sustine f. frumos Overmind intr-o teorie "de completare" a ecuatiilor Maxwell, ar fi cateva variante/motive/situatii.
mm
mm
Foarte activ
Foarte activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue5 / 105 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 1506
Puncte : 18987
Data de inscriere : 21/08/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Vin 13 Feb 2009, 16:42

Hehehe...Overmind si cu mine suntem vechi cunostinte...inclestare pe viata si pe moarte pe solaris2012.org/forum, zeci de pagini...6 banari pt. mine (un record minim, pe astronomy.ro am primit 12 banari, iar pe stiintaazi.ro/forum, 15 banari).

MM, iti aduc la cunostinta niste bijuterii stiintifice...uitate in sertarul lucrurilor interzise...

Cum au fost modificate ecuatiile originale ale lui Maxwell de catre O. Heaviside...

http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1773

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=1835

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/050402.htm

http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2.html

http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html

recovered link:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=205&start=0

(supersite)

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=53&view=unread

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/starting%20pages.htm
http://www.cheniere.org/books/part3/notes.htm (new electromagnetics)

http://members.tripod.com/lyne4lyne/tesla.htm

Abstract.
Maxwell's 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' abandons the theory of molecular vortices that was a central feature of his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'. Even after writing part I of his 1861 paper, Maxwell realized that a purely hydrodynamical approach to electromagnetic theory is insufficient, and so he introduced electrical particles and gradually shifted over to a more dynamical approach. This article investigates whether or not any physics was lost as a result of Maxwell abandoning his theory of molecular vortices. The focus of attention is centred on equation (5) of his 1861 paper, as this equation contains components that can be demonstrated to simultaneously represent both the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force, therefore implying that the Lorentz force is a kind of Coriolis force. Since a rotating frame of reference is needed for a Coriolis force, it follows that the Lorentz force must depend entirely on the rotating aethereal substance within Maxwell's vortex cells. The conclusion is that Maxwell made a serious error when he abandoned his theory of molecular vortices, and that the physical explanation for the Lorentz force was lost as a result.
The Coriolis Force in Maxwell's Equations
(A comparative study of Maxwell’s 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' and his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force')
(pe www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf googlesearch in format html)

http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm

http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/articles/york/esv1n4.htm

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/15.2_meyl.pdf

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/antigravityworldgrid/ciencia_antigravityworldgrid09.htm

http://www.tfcbooks.com/mall/more/610sw.htm

Scalar wavelengths are finer than gamma rays or X rays and only one hundred millionth of a square centimeter in width. They belong to the subtle gravitational field and are also known as gravitic waves. Uniquely, they flow in multiple directions at right angles off electromagnetic waves, as an untapped energy source called 'potentials'. Potentials are particles which are unorganized in hyperspace - pure etheric energy not manifest in the physical world. In comparison, electromagnetic waves (measured by so many hertz or pulses per second, which we are familiar with e.g. radio waves) exist normally in the physical world, but can only be measured up to levels determined by the sensitivity of the equipment being used as to how many cycles per second they operate.

Scalar waves were originally detected by a Scottish mathematical genius called James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) He linked electricity and magnetism and laid the foundation for modern physics, but unfortunately the very fine scalar waves (which he included in his research) were deliberately left out of his work by the 3 men, including Heinrich Hertz, who laid down the laws taught for physics as a discipline at colleges. They dismissed Maxwell's scalar waves or potentials as 'mystical' because they were physically unmanifest and only existed in the 'ethers' and so were determined to be too ineffectual for further study. These enigmatic (but more powerful than even microwaves when harnessed and concentrated into a beam) scalar waves may have been forgotten except that Nicola Tesla accidentally rediscovered them. He'd originally worked with Thomas Edison who discovered direct current, but Tesla discovered alternating current. The two men disagreed and eventually parted ways and Tesla later experimented using the research of the German Heinrich Hertz, who was proving the existence of electromagnetic waves. Tesla found, while experimenting with violently abrupt direct current electrical charges, that a new form of energy (scalar) came through.

By 1904, Tesla had developed transmitters to harness scalar energy from one transmitter to another, undetectably bypassing time and space. He could just materialize it from one place to another through hyperspace, without the use of wires, it was just sucked right out of the space-time/vacuum and into a transmitter and into a beam which could be targeted to another transmitter. Unfortunately he got no financial support for replacing electricity, which used wires and therefore earned money, and to this day, this is the reason why scalar energy is still not acknowledged in mainstream physics. Tesla, even though he discovered more for mankind in science than many others, is still not credited in science books for his discovery of scalar waves, a source of 'free-energy' obtainable as a limitless source of power that costs nothing. Other inventors have sporadically rediscovered 'free-energy' but have come to harm or have been silenced by the sum of millions of dollars hush money, a small sum compared to the sale of electricity, oil, gas and a myriad of other energy producers which would then be rendered worthless. Money hungry big business has harshly crushed any opposition to their own riches, generated by multiple obsolete earth polluting fossil fuels.

http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokan la data de Sam 14 Feb 2009, 18:12

@sandokhan a scris:THE AETHER ITSELF IS THE INERTIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE PHYSICISTS HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR, THAT IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION...
lol! This is priceless! So "the rest of the Universe" consists of the "aether", that thing that nobody can detect!?!?!? lol!
How can you use something you can't detect, as a frame of reference ? lol!








Bai ingratule
This must be the best joke yet! lol!







I also find this, repeated at nauseam:
@sandokhan a scris:First, we visit the beach at St.Catharines...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Pirate-ship-5137
One can barely see the top of the CN tower, a poor quality camera...but now...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Mirage-across-the-lake-5112

A larger portion of the buildings...a better camera...and now, the top of the Sky Dome...86 meters in height...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 072bb88a_0020000203427_00_600

Same beach...2 meters in height...
You mean to say that, from tha same spot (which you can't prove has only 2m height!), the portion of the buildings that is visible can vary like that, just because of the different qualities of the cameras? This is hilarious! lol!
Can you show in a diagram how does the optic quality of the cameras CUT the buildings ?
lol! lol! lol!

PS:
@sandokhan a scris:HERE ARE HER OWN WORDS:

This image of the Toronto Skyline was taken from 33 miles away across Lake Ontario with a Canon 300D and Sky-Watcher Equinox 80mm APO Telescope
Copyright Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn

33 miles = 52.8 km

[...] SHE STATES CLEARLY SHE DID NOT GO OVERTHERE, NOW YOU UNDERSTAND?
Where does she state that she did not go to the hills? What a LIAR ! SHAME ON YOU! See, that's why you deserve to be laughed at.

lol!lol!lol!

sandokan
Statornic
Statornic

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 53
Puncte : 12186
Data de inscriere : 21/01/2009
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Sam 14 Feb 2009, 18:27

electron, te faci de ras din nou...daca nu ai nimic inteligent de spus...mai bine taci draq din gura...

You have been offerred already all the proofs necessary to understand that the aether has been detected, many times before...

The most important scientific experiment of the 19th century was, of course, GB Airy's aether experiment, please read carefully:

G. B. Airy's experiment (1871):

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

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

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

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

See also: http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm

Here the special section, on experiments performed by great scientists, from Francis Nipher, to AN Kozyrev, which proves that the aether concept is real:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/experiments-of-f-nipher-c-brush-biefeld-brown-effect-t47.htm

Now, the aether experiments of Nikola Tesla, the best and most famous scientist of all times:

HERE YOU HAVE AT YOUR DISPOSAL THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TODAY, CLEARLY YOU HAVE NOT DONE YOUR HOMEWORK, YOUR STUPIDE STATEMENTS PROVE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, ELECTRON...

http://www.neogen.ro/group/36777/view-posts/74593

HERE IS TESLA HIMSELF, IN HIS OWN WORDS, DESCRIBING THE AETHER:

Din jurnalul personal al lui Tesla...

Part 1. You are wrong, Mr. Einstein – ether does exist!

They say much about the Einstein’s theory now. According to Einstein the ether does not exist and many people agree with him. But it is a mistake in my opinion. Ether’s opponents refer to the experiments of Maykelson – Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) who made attempts to detect the Earth’s movement relative to the fixed-bed ether. These experiments failed, however it didn’t mean the ether’s non-existence. I always based as fact the existence of mechanical ether in my works and therefore I could achieve positive success.

What is the ether and why is it so difficult to detect it? I reflected on this matter for a seriously long time and here are the outcomes I have been led to: I think that all the contradictions about whether the ether exists or not are the result of wrong interpretation of ether’s properties. The ether has always been presented as an aeroform environment. That was the essential mistake. The ether has a very strong density. It is known that of more dense a substance, the higher is the speed of wave propagation within it. When comparing acoustic speed in the air and the light speed I have drawn a conclusion that ether density is several thousand times higher than air density. It is not the ether that is aeroform but the material world is an aeroform to the ether! But as the ether is electrically neutral it very poorly interacts with the material world. Notwithstanding that poor interaction we still can feel the ether’s existence.

A good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another. We wrongly call this phenomena gravitation. We can also feel ether’s reaction when sudden acceleration or braking. The stars, planets and all the universe appeared from the ether when some part of it, due to certain reasons, became less dense. It can be compared with formation of blebs in boiling water although such a comparison is only rough. The ether tries to return itself to its initial state by compressing our world, but intrinsic electric charge within material the world substance obstructs this. It is similar to that when the water compresses blebs filled with hot water steam. Until the steam does get cold the water is unable to compress the bleb. With time, having lost the intrinsic electric charge, our world will be compressed with the ether and is going to turn into ether. Having come out of the ether once - so it will go back into the ether.

Density of substance of material world strongly differs from the density and physical properties of the ether. Therefore, the ether cannot remain in a fixed-bed state around material bodies and under certain circumstances there will be an ether whirlwind appearing around material bodies. Hence, we can explain the reason for failure of the Maykelson – Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) experiment.

Einstein’s assertion of non-existence of the ether is erroneous. It is difficult to imagine radio-wave and light transmission without ether. Einstein says that there is no ether and at the same time, practically he proves its existence. For example, let’s consider the speed of the passage of light. Einstein states that the velocity of light does not depend on the rate of movement of the light source. It’s correct. But this principle can exist only when the light source is in a certain physical environment (ether), which cuts down velocity of light due to its properties. Ether’s substance cuts down the velocity of light in the same way as air substance cuts down the acoustic speed. If the ether did not exist then velocity of light would strongly depend on the rate of movement of the light source.

HERE IS EINSTEIN HIMSELF DESCRIBING THE AETHER, YOU DUMMY:

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time.
(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)


Etherul devine vizibil in fotografiile Kirlian si observabil in fenomenul fulgerului globular (ball lightning)...

kirlian photography
http://www.crystalinks.com/kirlian.html

http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kf.html

http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kfgalery/gal.html

http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kfjava/kfjava.html

Ball lightning Tesla research

http://home.dmv.com/~tbastian/ball.htm

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/tesla/ballgtn.html

130 ball lightning links:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031205011112/http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/main/bigsearch/ball-lighting.html

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/plasma/index.htm

Gravity/Ether:

http://gravityandether.com/html/gravity_and_ether_theory.html

DYNAMIC ETHER SUPERSITE:

http://www.softcom.net/users/greebo/phys1.htm


Ultima editare efectuata de catre sandokhan in Sam 14 Feb 2009, 20:06, editata de 1 ori
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Sam 14 Feb 2009, 18:33

OTHER QUOTES FROM EINSTEIN ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE AETHER:

Este extrem de interesant de analizat faptul ca in 1920, de exemplu, si din nou in 1923, Einstein credea cu tarie, de fapt, in existenta eterului:

In 1920, after Einstein had become famous, he made an inaugural address on aether and relativity theory for his special chair in Leiden. In the address he states:

The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.

So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics! This illustrates the arbitrary nature of relativity, most physicists, and for that matter, most physics text books, present the argument that relativity is not an ether theory.

FAMOUS QUOTES ABOUT THE AETHER:

http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/addendum3.html

EINSTEIN AGAIN:

"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e., we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it... [There] is a weighty argument to be advanced in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." Einstein

Dynamic aether:

http://www.softcom.net/users/greebo/phys1.htm

Aether theory physics:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether.html

Now, back to the flat earth theory...
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Sam 14 Feb 2009, 18:48

Here is a 150% zoom of that photograph, you seem not to understand what we are talking about here...

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 072b7c38_0020000203428_00_600

You already have the formula; from that height of 2 meters (the photographers), over 53 km, YOU CANNOT SEE ANYTHING UNDER THE ALTITUDE OF 180 METERS.

THE HEIGHT OF THE SKY DOME IS 86 METERS, I WILL GIVE FOUR MORE METERS, WE HAVE NOW 90 METERS, A DIFFERENCE OF 90 METERS BETWEEN THE ROUND EARTH THEORY AND THE REAL LIFE DATA.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

I have already discussed with you, in detail, the fact the quality of the camera is responsible for the altitude of the buildings being observed in the photo, that is well known, you dummy, from the art of photography, in case you did not know.

Let us prove that we are at a height of 2 meters, as you can see clearly.

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg

WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? YOU CAN SEE THE WATER OF THE LAKE JUST IN FRONT, WHAT HEIGHT DO YOU WANT TO GO TO?

THE REASON YOU CAN BARELY SEE THE TIP OF THE CNTOWER, IS THE CAMERA ITSELF, A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OFFICIAL 180 METERS MEASUREMENT AND THE 400 METER PORTION MISSING OF 220 METERS; THE ONLY REASON BEING THE CAMERA ITSELF, WHICH CANNOT CAPTURE THE FULL DETAILS, WELL KNOWN FROM THE ART OF PHOTOGRAPHY...

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

NOW MORE DETAILS BEING SEEN, PERHAPS A BETTER QUALITY CAMERA BEING USED, BUT USING AN EVEN BETTER APARATUS, WE GET:

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 072bb88a_0020000203427_00_600

Here is the official explanation for you, from the manual itself:

Panoramic image sharpness with a rectilinear lens: When an extremely wide rectilinear lens is used to expose film through a slit in a panoramic camera, the image appears sharp along the horizon, but in this case, the VERTICAL resolution gets increasingly worse toward the top and bottom of the picture. This problem arises because the image scale of a rectilinear lens increases toward the edge of its coverage. The change in image scale is directly proportional to the change in linear distance between the secondary principal point of the lens and the relevant imaging points on the film plane.

Most wide angle lenses utilize what is called a rectilinear projection. This is the same projection that would be imaged with a pinhole camera, and it images straight lines as straight lines in the picture, regardless of their orientation to the lens. If a rectilinear lens is positioned above the exact center of a flat subject but is not pointed squarely at it, the image of the subject will be distorted, or "keystoned", with the part of the subject farthest from the center of the picture appearing to be enlarged. This is desirable for wide angle photography of some subjects, because it tends to exaggerate perspective. A rectilinear lens is also incapable of covering an angle greater than or equal to 180 degrees. This is easy to envision when you consider the pinhole camera. Fortunately, the rotation of the panoramic camera will cover the 360 degree horizon. The lens only limits the VERTICAL angle covered by the panorama.


HAD SHE GONE TO THE HILLS, SHE WOULD HAVE PUT UP THE DISTANCE OF 35 MILES, AND THE LOCATION, OUTSIDE OF GRIMSBY ITSELF, DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

HERE ARE HER OWN WORDS:

This image of the Toronto Skyline was taken from 33 miles away across Lake Ontario with a Canon 300D and Sky-Watcher Equinox 80mm APO Telescope
Copyright Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn

GRIMSBY, WITH 33 MILES (52.8 KM), that is Grimsby itself, no hills, her own words...
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Sam 14 Feb 2009, 18:51

FOR THE SIXTH TIME YOU ARE IGNORING THE EVIDENCE, LET ME REMIND YOU...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037881/

View of Grimsby from the Escarpment at Beamer Falls Conservation Area.

Now, the extraordinary photograph taken from Beamer Falls itself:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/

As seen from Beamer Falls Conservation Area

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 53037827_fdb83b96bd_b

Beamer’s Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.

One of the best proofs that there is no curvature over lake Ontario; from 45 meters, we need another 10 meters just to reach the top of the curvature, right in front of you, and then miss the bottom 65 meters of the buildings in Toronto (the visual obstacle). But there is no curvature, no midpoint 55 meter obstacle, the Toronto downtown buildings visible top to bottom.


LAKE MICHIGAN

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43.htm#404

From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Those residents saw those buildings because, ngb, the surface of the lake Michigan is completely flat.
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokan la data de Sam 14 Feb 2009, 20:43

@sandokhan a scris:Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope.
lol!

Now that you bring this into discussion, let's see how good you are at physics: What would have been the change in the angle, if the earth was not stationary? Make the calcuations and show everybody the results and how you got them.

lol!

I already know that you'll never answer this. At most you'll bring more repeating and neverending junk.

lol!lol!lol!

Oh, and to quote from the source you gave:
It does not matter whether there exists a luminiferous aether or not, because the dragging of starlight, as demonstrated initially by Arago, is real, irrespective of how we try to explain it.
Now the paradox: if the earth is stationary with respect to the "aether" and the stars are the ones to be moving through this hilarious "aether", then what exactly causes the "dragging of starlight" ? Once the light leaves the stars, it's not possible to be dragged anywhere by a stationary "aether". Get it?

lol! lol! lol!

sandokan
Statornic
Statornic

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 53
Puncte : 12186
Data de inscriere : 21/01/2009
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Sam 14 Feb 2009, 21:12

Now, you are showing everybody your level of intelligence: the stars ARE MOVED by the aether, THEY COULD NOT go through it, since then WE WOULD HAVE FRICTION, it would slowly modify the orbits...

But the Earth IS stationary, you have here all the necessary proofs, from the cloud trajectory, to the Airy experiment; if you want to make calculations just for fun, you are free to do it, you are not here on the play by request radio, so that I or anybody else, will spend time (which costs money you know) to satisfy your nonsense.

Regarding, light dragging, please read again the links given here, more on:

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Negative%20parallax.htm

Now, more photographs, taken from HAMILTON, LAKE ONTARIO, DISTANCE 65.8 KM, curvature more than 55 meters:

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 487755017_df040421e8_o

TAKEN FROM THE BEACH ITSELF, AS DESCRIBED BY THE AUTHORS, NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER, FLAT SURFACE OF WATER ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE LAKE

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

ANOTHER INCREDIBLE PHOTOGRAPH, TAKEN FROM THE HAMILTON BEACH:

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

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 487726854_24a5c0559d_o

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

Distance Hamilton-Toronto:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_distance_from_Hamilton_Canada_to_Toronto_Canada

Map Lake Ontario:

http://www.sailski.com/images/OntarioMap.jpg
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokan la data de Sam 14 Feb 2009, 21:42

@sandokhan a scris:Now, you are showing everybody your level of intelligence: the stars ARE MOVED by the aether, THEY COULD NOT go through it, since then WE WOULD HAVE FRICTION, it would slowly modify the orbits...

But the Earth IS stationary, you have here all the necessary proofs, from the cloud trajectory, to the Airy experiment;
This is priceless! lol!
So the earth is stationary with respect to the hilarious "aether", the stars are moving with respect to the earth, and the stars are moved by the same hilarious "aether", which means that the "aether" is moving with respect to the earth that is stationary with respect to the "aether".

This should summarize your logic quite well.

lol!{editat de administrator}


if you want to make calculations just for fun, you are free to do it, you are not here on the play by request radio, so that I or anybody else, will spend time (which costs money you know) to satisfy your nonsense.
I knew that you were unable to make such calculations. lol!

sandokan
Statornic
Statornic

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 53
Puncte : 12186
Data de inscriere : 21/01/2009
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Dum 15 Feb 2009, 19:53

electron, tu esti un bulache mic si scump! Priceless! Si useless pe deasupra...

Cred ca ar trebui sa porti o banderola neagra la brat...in semn de respect pentru decesul teoriei pamantului rotund...

How many times do I have to explain to you? It is outside the scope of our discussion, for me to do research, hours at a time, to answer something which, if you are interested, you can find out on your own. Stop pretending that it would make a difference to you; the Airy 1871 experiment is very clear and your mischievious efforts to deviate or devagate the discussion will not work, not with me...

Everybody realizes quite clearly that your scientific knowledge is equal to almost zero, you are truly one of a kind, electron!

Your stupidity is remarkable in its details...no, my dumb friend, you have it all wrong...

THE STARS/PLANETS/SUN/MOON ARE ROTATING IN A CLOSED FORM ENVIRONMENT, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? THAT CLOSED FORM ENVIRONMENT, COMPOSED OF THE ROTATIONAL AETHER, IS THE INERTIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE; THE EARTH IS COMPLETELY STATIONARY, AS YOU HAVE SEEN FROM THE MESSAGES POSTED, LOOK AT THE CLOUD TRAJECTORY ARGUMENT...

Everybody can see you for what you really are electron; you have been given the very best bibliography + explanations so that you can see how we have all been tricked into believing in an expanding universe, in an planetary atomic model, and in an attractive gravity concept...

electron, you are ignoring the evidence for the seventh time, what are we going to do with you?

THE SURFACE OF THE WATER BETWEEN HAMILTON AND TORONTO, 65.5 KM DISTANCE IS COMPLETELY FLAT, AS YOU CAN SEE:

THE CURVATURE FOR 65.5 KM IS 84 METERS, ABSOLUTELY NONEXISTENT:

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 487755017_df040421e8_o

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

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

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 487726854_24a5c0559d_o

Map Lake Ontario:

http://www.sailski.com/images/OntarioMap.jpg

No curvature over the lake Ontario, none whatsoever...over a distance of over 60 km...therefore completely proving the flat earth theory...

NO CURVATURE OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, NO CURVATURE OVER THE ENGLISH CHANNEL:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43-15.htm#439

NO CURVATURE OVER LAKE ONTARIO, NONE WHATSOEVER:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43-15.htm#437
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokan la data de Dum 15 Feb 2009, 20:12

@sandokhan a scris:THE STARS/PLANETS/SUN/MOON ARE ROTATING IN A CLOSED FORM ENVIRONMENT, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? THAT CLOSED FORM ENVIRONMENT, COMPOSED OF THE ROTATIONAL AETHER, IS THE INERTIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE; THE EARTH IS COMPLETELY STATIONARY, AS YOU HAVE SEEN FROM THE MESSAGES POSTED, LOOK AT THE CLOUD TRAJECTORY ARGUMENT...
lol! {editat de administrator}
So, you're still unable to realize the fact that you are contradicting yourself!?!?! If the inertial frame of reference is "the rotational (and hilarious) aether", then how can the earth be stationary with respect to it? With respect to what exactly is your hilarious "aether" rotating?
lol!{editat de administrator}

sandokan
Statornic
Statornic

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 53
Puncte : 12186
Data de inscriere : 21/01/2009
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Lun 16 Feb 2009, 15:04

electroane, crezi ca nu stim ca tu ai fost de fapt marius, gigel, hix, iceiris si restul, acolo pe stiintaazi.ro/forum? Aceeasi exprimare si aceleasi idei...

What is it so hard to understand? Use your imagination, your intuition, if you have any...

I am not contradicting myself, I know very well what has been posted here, each and every word...read again...

Let me explain to you our position in the Universe, then perhaps it will be easier to understand.

We have one single planet in the center of the Universe, our Earth, completely stationary. Above the flat earth we have the first Dome, the aether pressure below it is the actual gravitation; this Dome separates the STARS/PLANETARY ORBITS from the world below.

The stars/planets/Sun/Moon are moved by the rotational aether, called in antiquity pravaha for example, and they (planets) follow EPICYCLES AND NOT ELLIPSES (more on this below) for the shape of their orbits.

To keep these heavenly bodies from flying off into the outer aether/gases, we have a second Dome, well known from antiquity...

Outside the second Dome we have aether, gases, and a huge ring of ice, known as the Oort Cloud, made up entirely of chunks of ice. The Oort Cloud IS ACTUALLY the Milky Way; this fact was discovered by the greatest astronomer of the 20th century, Hans Hoerbiger.

Now, you can realize quickly what the inertial frame of reference is: THE AETHER ITSELF, the rotational part IS IN A CLOSED FORM ENVIRONMENT, WITHIN A WELL DEFINED SPACE, BETWEEN THE TWO DOMES, THEREFORE IT CAN BE USED AS AN INERTIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE. THE STARS/PLANETS MOVE WITHIN THIS AETHER, THEY ARE MOVING WITH RESPECT TO THE EARTH, BUT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY WITH RESPECT TO THEIR MOVEMENTS/ORBITS, AS CONFIRMED BY THE 1871 GB AIRY EXPERIMENT. Now you understand, electron?

Please read carefully my messages, you will find plenty of proofs for the existence of the aether, starting of course, with the direct quotes from Einstein, or have you forgotten them?

Now, here is how Kepler CHANGED the original shape of the orbits, epicycles, discovered by Tycho Brahe, and replaced them with ellipses:

Kepler copied his three laws of planetary orbit motion from Aryabhattia and Siddhanta Shiromani:

Bhaskara (1114-1185) expanded in his treatise Siddhanta-Shiromani, where he mentioned the law of gravity, discovered that the planets don't orbit the Sun at a uniform velocity, and accurately calculated many astronomical constants based on this model, such as the solar and lunar eclipses, and the velocities and instantaneous motions of the planets. Arabic translations of Aryabhata's Aryabhatiya were available from the 8th century, while Latin translations were available from the 13th century, before Copernicus had written De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, so it's quite likely that Aryabhata's work had an influence on Copernicus' ideas.

The Indian astronomer-mathematician Aryabhata (476–550), was also the first to discover that the light from the Moon and the planets were reflected from the Sun, and that the planets follow an elliptical orbit around the Sun, and thus propunded an eccentric elliptical model of the planets, on which he accurately calculated many astronomical constants, such as the times of the solar and lunar eclipses, and the instantaneous motion of the Moon (expressed as a differential equation).

And Kepler modified the true shape of the orbit, the epicycle, with the equivalent mathematical concept of the ellipse:

Tycho Brahe made very accurate measurements of Mars' positions. These showed that even in the Copernican system, epicycles were required! So Brahe believed in a variation of the Ptolemaic system in which the planets went around the Sun, but the Sun went around the Earth.

The site which shows the superiority of the epicycle approach:

http://wwwdata.unibg.it/dati/bacheca/63/21692.pdf

The Earth is at the center.

The Moon & Sun orbit the Earth.

but, the planets orbit the Sun.

The Tychonic System uses the full machinery of epicycles, etc. to make it all work in details, without using equants. Tycho felt that his system explained planetary motions better, and preserved the ideas of an unmoving Earth and uniform circular motion.


Epicycle geocentrical planetary motion:

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/resource-ref-read/chief-systems/08-0retro-2.htm

In 1605 Kepler offered to the world the falsified theory, using the original 34 volumes stolen from Brahe, which proved once and for all that the geocentric description of the planetary orbits is the correct one; these volumes were never seen again, Kepler also modified the data in these books to give the impression of an elliptical orbit for the planets...Johannes Kepler was an occult Sun worshipper (just like Koppernigk and Galilei)...

ASSASINATION OF TYCHO BRAHE BY JOHANNES KEPLER:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=0713f199ab19a4c8b95e6c9e410bb970&topic=589.0

PS

Inside the 2nd heaven the stars are in a circular band which is rotating around the Earth every 23 hours and 56 minutes. During these nightly observed and ceaseless revolutions, every true and actual star is being reflected (repetitiously and with laser-like accuracy) countless times off of precisely situated water crystals embedded in the underside of a dome which encases the universe. It is these countless reflections that make up the theorized billions of galaxies with trillions of stars in a 15 billion light year thick universe claimed by mythematical Kabbalist sorcery to be scientific fact.

Hence, while modern cosmology assures us that the universe is populated by mega-zillions of stars that are billions of light years distant from the Earth, the zetetic astronomy instead assures us that there are a very few million at the most and they are not one ten-trillionth as far away as we are told. The 'likenesses' of this limited number of named stars are then being 'imaged' and 'reflected' billions of times off of the mirror-like facets in the crystalline outer dome as it revolves synchronously with the starry stellatum in the lower part of the 2nd heaven. It is these reflections that are being counted--along with the real stars--as individual stars and clusters of stars in those unseen hypothesized galaxy simulations.

There is a comprehensible, intelligible number of stars being imaged and reflected almost endlessly but very precisely off of both multi-faceted and also great smooth mirroring crystals which are set in the underside of a canopy covering the universe just beyond the outer limit of the firmament.

The double error of modern cosmology lies in interpreting these reflections as zillions of galaxies and stars, and then extrapolating from that interpretation an incomprehensibly large and old universe because of the first error.
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14358
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de sandokan la data de Lun 16 Feb 2009, 17:53

@sandokhan a scris:I am not contradicting myself
Yes you are. lol!

Let me explain to you our position in the Universe, then perhaps it will be easier to understand.

We have one single planet in the center of the Universe, our Earth, completely stationary. Above the flat earth we have the first Dome, the aether pressure below it is the actual gravitation; this Dome separates the STARS/PLANETARY ORBITS from the world below.
Ok, you also said that the earth is stationary with respect to the "rest of the universe" which consists of the (hilarious) "aether", the "absolute frame of reference". (claim no 1)

The stars/planets/Sun/Moon are moved by the rotational aether, called in antiquity pravaha for example, and they follow EPICYCLES AND NOT ELLIPSES (more on this below) for the shape of their orbits.

To keep these heavenly bodies from flying off into the outer aether/gases, we have a second Dome, well known from antiquity...
Oh, this is new! There are some "domes" above the earth... Well, how high is the first Dome? And the Second? And are there more?

You say that between the first and the second Domes there are the planets which are moved by the "rotational aether" there. So the earth is stationary with respect to the hilarious "aehter" below the first Dome and is rotating with respect to the hilarious "aehter" between the two first Domes. So the hilarious "aether" is not permeating all the Universe in a uniform way, but there are regions where the hilarious "aehter" is moving with respect to the hilarious "aehter" in other regions! This is really hilarious! lol! lol! lol!

Outside the second Dome we have aether, gases, and a huge ring of ice, known as the Oort Cloud, made up entirely of chunks of ice. The Oort Cloud IS ACTUALLY the Milky Way; this fact was discovered by the greatest astronomer of the 20th century, Hans Hoerbiger.
Wow, kudos to Hans! Now, you forgot to mention if the hilarious "aehter" outside the second Dome in rotating with respect to the earth, or not. Which is it? And if it is rotating with respect to the earth, is it rotating with respect to the hilarious "aehter" between the first two Domes or not?

Now, you can realize quickly what the inertial frame of reference is: THE AETHER ITSELF, the rotational part IS IN A CLOSED FORM ENVIRONMENT, WITHIN A WELL DEFINED SPACE, BETWEEN THE TWO DOMES, THEREFORE IT CAN BE USED AS AN INERTIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE.
So now the "inertial frame of reference" is the hilarious "aehter" found between the first two Domes, and it is rotating with respect to the earth! (claim no 2).
I won't tell you that a rotating frame of reference can't be inertial, because you obviously have no idea what "inertial frame of reference" means. I will however tell you that the claims no 1 and no 2 are contradicting each other, which proves that you are contradicting yourself.
lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!lol!

THE STARS/PLANETS MOVE WITHIN THIS AETHER, THEY ARE MOVING WITH RESPECT TO THE EARTH, BUT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY WITH RESPECT TO THEIR MOVEMENTS/ORBITS, AS CONFIRMED BY THE 1871 GB AIRY EXPERIMENT.
This is again, very funny! lol! So the stars are moving with respect to the earth, but the earth is stationary with respect to their movements! lol! lol! lol!

And just to laugh a bit more: did you know that the planets are moving with respect to each other ?!?!? lol! If they are moved by the "rotational hilarious aether" between the first two Domes, because otherwise there would be friction and the orbits would be affected, then how can they move differently than all the other stars between those two Domes? lol!

And not to forget: what are those "Domes" made of, exactly? Isn't there friction between the Domes and the hilarious "aether" ? lol!

Well, I suppose you won't waste your precious time answering these questions, but you'll surely find time to spout more neverending repeating junk!
lol!{editat de administrator}

Vă rog să nu faceţi abuz de iconiţe şi, pe cât posibil, să discutaţi pe un ton mai modest. Vă mulţumesc.

sandokan
Statornic
Statornic

Mulţumit de forum :
New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 53
Puncte : 12186
Data de inscriere : 21/01/2009
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

New photographs/New proofs - Pagina 2 Empty Re: New photographs/New proofs

Mesaj Scris de Continut sponsorizat


Continut sponsorizat


Sus In jos

Pagina 1 din 3 1, 2, 3  Urmatorul

Sus


 
Permisiunile acestui forum:
Nu puteti raspunde la subiectele acestui forum