New photographs/New proofs

Rezumarea primului mesaj :

Pozele incredible, senzationale facute din Grimsby, cu zoom:



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:



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.

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 a scris:With respect to the rest of the Universe, you dummy!!!

Ha-ha-ha!

"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!

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

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

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

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

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.

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

This is priceless! So "the rest of the Universe" consists of the "aether", that thing that nobody can detect!?!?!?
How can you use something you can't detect, as a frame of reference ?

Bai ingratule

This must be the best joke yet!







I also find this, repeated at nauseam:

sandokhan a scris:First, we visit the beach at St.Catharines...


One can barely see the top of the CN tower, a poor quality camera...but now...



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



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!
Can you show in a diagram how does the optic quality of the cameras CUT the buildings ?


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.

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:

https://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

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...

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



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:



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...

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



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

https://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 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.

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.



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



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?

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:



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



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 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!
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.

{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.

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:



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

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



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:

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

NO CURVATURE OVER LAKE ONTARIO, NONE WHATSOEVER:

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

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...

{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?
{editat de administrator}

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 a scris:I am not contradicting myself

Yes you are.

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!

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.

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! So the stars are moving with respect to the earth, but the earth is stationary with respect to their movements!

And just to laugh a bit more: did you know that the planets are moving with respect to each other ?!?!? 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?

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

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!
{editat de administrator}

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

electron, ti s-a mai spus ca esti un {editat de administrator} de tot...sa ne aducem aminte cum ai desenat DIRECT pe o schema facuta de mana, fara scara de masura...

We do have concrete evidence about the Domes, and the nature of the aether between those two domes...you are ignoring all the other information you have been given, that there could not be a big bang and/or a string theory explanation for the existence of the universe, that a Planet/Satellite/Star system cannot function using an attractive gravitation hypothesis...that the faint young sun paradox tells us clearly that its energy source could not be nuclear...and much more...truly you are stupide electron, without intelligence or any capacity of understanding!!!

Isn't it hilarious rather to believe in a rotating earth, around its own axis, with 1600 km/hr when all the clouds trajectories show clearly that the earth is stationary?

Esti un {editat de administrator}...

{editat de administrator}, I have explained to you that the aether below the first Dome is responsible for the constant pressure known as gravitation; the aether between the two Domes is rotational, but in a closed form environment, otherwise the planets/stars would fly apart, don't you understand this much?

At this moment in time, we do not have the information relating to the aether beyond the second dome...more study is necessary in this direction...

{editat de administrator}, even the rotational layers of aether, if they are located in a closed form environment, can be understood as an inertial frame of reference, the planets/stars have definite orbits which can be tracked, around the North Pole, see photos below:



The best evidence, that the orbits of the stars take them AROUND THE NORTH POLE, in a closed form environment, rotating every 24 hours above the flat earth.

THE EARTH IS STATIONARY WITH RESPECT TO THE STARS, YOU IDIOT, THE AIRY EXPERIMENT PROVED THAT CLEARLY, HERE IT IS AGAIN, FOR AN IMBECILE LIKE YOU, I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF TO MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND SOMETHING SO SIMPLE:

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.

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

Do you understand, {editat de administrator}?

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

{editat de administrator}, I have already explained that the MECHANICS BEHIND THE PLANETS ORBITS ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF AN UFO, THAT IS WHY CLASSICAL MECHANICS CANNOT EXPLAIN THE PERTURBATIONS BETWEEN THE PLANETS; THE PLANETS ARE DIRECTED TO MOVE IN A CERTAIN WAY, YOU UNDERSTAND? THEY DO NOT MOVE AT RANDOM...HERE IS THE PROOF THAT AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION HYPOTHESIS CANNOT EXPLAIN THE PERTURBATIONS OF MAJOR PLANETS:

Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced in repulsion as well as attraction. A perturbation displacing a planet or a satellite by a few seconds of arc must direct it from its orbit. It is assumed that the orbits of all planets and satellites did not change because of perturbations. A regulating force emanating from the primary appears to act. In the gravitational system there is no place left for such regulating forces.

The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference.(18) As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

18 - J. Zenneck, “Gravitation” in Encyclop. der Mathem. Wiss., vol. V, part I p.44.

{editat de administrator}, THE DOMES ARE MADE OF AETHER, THERE IS NO FRICTION BETWEEN THEM AND THE AETHER, AND EVEN IF THERE WAS, WE COULD NOT DETECT THAT FROM HERE; THAT IS WHY WE CANNOT SEE THE DOMES THEMSELVES, BUT ITS PRESENCE WAS FELT VERY MUCH WHEN THOSE SOVIET ASTRONAUTS DIED BETWEEN 1957-1961 BECAUSE OF THE HUGE RADIATION.

I have already demonstrated to you that the surface of the earth is completely flat, here it is again:

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:




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

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




Map Lake Ontario:

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

The aether theory and the flat earth are equivalent; I have just demonstrated to you the flatness of the water between Hamilton and Toronto, over a distance of 65 km...{editat de administrator}!!!


P.S. În măsura timpului disponibil, voi mai edita pasajele pe care eu le-am observat că sunt calomnioase. Vă rog să-mi semnalaţi şi altele, iar pe autorii lor îi rog să le evite pe cât posibil. Dacă nu voi avea timp să le editez, atunci mă voi vedea nevoit să şterg mesaje în întregime, pentru că doresc să menţinem o atmosferă liniştită pe forum.
Vă mulţumesc pentru înţelegere.

sandokhan a scris:THE EARTH IS STATIONARY WITH RESPECT TO THE STARS

{editat de administrator}
With this, my work here is done. I had a good laugh, but from now on it's too sad to continue.

Off topic:

Stimati administratori/moderatori, faptul ca tolerati asemenea exprimare si atacuri la persoana cum foloseste "sandokhan" ma face sa fiu complet dezgustat de acest forum.

Doresc tuturor membrilor mult succes, eu nu am intentia sa ma mai particip la vreo discutie in aceste conditii.

Good bye!

Ia uite...nu-ti convin jignirile, care ti se potrivesc ca o manusa...dar dl-ului Abel Cavasi cum crezi ca i-au convenit cuvintele tale dure, folosite din nou si din nou pe stiintaazi.ro/forum? Sa vin aici cu citate cu tot, in care te incapatanai sa jignesti la greu, cu toate ca te-a reclamat la admin, care nu era in stare de nimic?

Tu esti cel care aduci discutia la un asemenea nivel, electron; eu nu am intrat pe stiintaazi sa injur sau sa jignesc, TU esti cel care a dat tonul la corul jignirilor, nimeni nu iti facuse nimic, tine de educatia celor 7 ani de acasa, ai fost acuzat de perfidie inainte, tu acuzi pe toti ceilalti de incompetenta, in timp ce tu, care ai desenat direct pe scheme fara scara de masura, nu accepti sa fii admonestat in vreun fel; tu esti cel care enervezi in mod continuu oamenii...uita-te la limbajul tau de aici, tendentios, in fiecare mesaj...asta e exprimarea ta de om {editat de administrator} electron...cum indraznesti sa te plangi cand tu l-ai jignit pe A. Cavasi mult mai rau, din lipsa de argumente, pe stiintaazi.ro?

ps si acum, carevasazica, stii limba romana?

Abel, nu eu am inceput...stii bine cum stau lucrurile...isi face de cap si sunt nevoit sa-l urechez putin...este bine ca ai sters unele pasaje, dar nu imi plac amenintarile...de ce nu l-ai atentionat pe electron de la bun inceput, sa scrie civilizat? Stergerea mesajelor engros este o procedura care am vazut ca se practica pe stiintaazi si pe astronomy, sa speram ca nu vei recurge la asa ceva aici...

Am oferit argumente si poze suficiente pentru orice om sanatos la cap ca sa vada ca forma pamantului este cu totul alta decat cea descrisa in mass media...

sandokhan a scris:Abel, nu eu am inceput...stii bine cum stau lucrurile...isi face de cap si sunt nevoit sa-l urechez putin...

Ai dreptate, el a început, dar hai să încercăm să nu urechem pe nimeni niciodată .

sandokhan a scris:este bine ca ai sters unele pasaje, dar nu imi plac amenintarile

Este de înţeles, nimănui nu-i plac ameninţările şi o să fac tot posibilul să nu te ameninţ. Văd că şi tu faci eforturi să te comporţi destul de frumos aici, prin faptul că postezi în secţiunea dedicată şi te străduieşti să aduci argumente.

sandokhan a scris:...de ce nu l-ai atentionat pe electron de la bun inceput, sa scrie civilizat?

Am sperat că nu va escalada conflictul şi că tu vei avea puterea să suporţi tonul său zeflemitor. Am greşit, evident. Iartă-mă!

sandokhan a scris:Stergerea mesajelor engros este o procedura care am vazut ca se practica pe stiintaazi si pe astronomy, sa speram ca nu vei recurge la asa ceva aici...

Fii liniştit, va mai curge multă apă pe Dunăre până să fiu nevoit să fac asta. Deocamdată voi face tot posibilul să iau la puricat fiecare mesaj calomnios, dar încearcă să fii mai presus decât cei care te jignesc.

sandokhan a scris:Am oferit argumente si poze suficiente pentru orice om sanatos la cap ca sa vada ca forma pamantului este cu totul alta decat cea descrisa in mass media...

Eu sunt de acord că există porţiuni în care Pământul este mai puţin curbat (poate chiar convex) în anumite porţiuni. Dar asta nu înseamnă că în ansamblu acesta n-ar fi rotund.

Abel, you make my day! Pamantul nu poate fi rotund pe o portiune, si plat pe restul suprafetei.

Ori este plat, ori nu. Nu merge mai putin convex, cifrele sunt clare de tot, calcularea curburii iarasi facuta la centimetru, no place for errors.

Toata fizica clasica si moderna ne spune clar ca (cum zici tu) pe ansamblu pamantul NU POATE FI rotund.

Hai sa le luam pe rand, shall we?

Eu inteleg ca tu nu vei accepta niciodata in public asa ceva, cu toate ca pozele iti arata clar in fata ca forma pamantului este de fapt plata...dar mergem mai departe...

Viteza rotatiei axiale a Soarelui in momentul in care era format sistemul planetar, nu a putut sa fie suficienta pentru ca inelele de materie sa se desprinda; chiar admitand acest lucru, aceste inele nu ar fi avut cum sa se formeze (sau sa pastreze) forma de globuri.

Stii deja demonstratiile complete ale imposibilitatii big bang/string theories; ai citit ca nu exista nici un fel de concept de spatiu-timp, si ca STR/GTR sunt doar fantezii, fara vreo legatura cu realitatea...

Cel mai formidabil argument care ne spune clar ca Pamantul este stationar este traiectoria norilor, vezi sirul de aici, demonstratie completa.

Toate misiunile Nasa/Mir au fost falsificate, vezi sectiunea cu dovezile formidabile...si marturia unui fost angajat la Precision Slide Lab care ne spune cum sunt modificate toate imaginile inainte de a fi oferite pt. public.

Faint Young Sun Paradox distruge complet teoria potrivit careia sursa de energie a Soarelui ar fi de natura nucleara.

Dovezile arheologice clare ne spun ca dinozaurii traiau bine mersi acum aprox. 4250 de ani, vezi Jurassic Park, pt. dovezile coplesitoare; exact opus cronologiei moderne, bazata pe fantezii fara rost...

Explozia de la Tungusk, 1908, vazuta de la 1000 km departare din Irkutsk; se puteau citi ziarele de seara, dupa doar cateva minute de la explozie, la Londra, la orele 0:25-0:30, la Stockholm se faceau poze afara in aer liber la acea ora fara flash...

Peste Canalul Manecii, Stramtoarea Gibraltar, Lacul Ontario, Lacul Michigan NU EXISTA CURBURA, vezi pozele, cu cifre extrem de precise, cu repere vizuale extrem de bine documentate, vezi doar poza facuta din Beamer Falls, 45 metri inaltime...

Acum, Abel, sa revenim la noi in tara, ce zici?

Asa cum stim pentru Varful Toaca - Mangalia, vom avea o curbura de 3,1 km, cu un obstacol vizual de 12,54 km, absolut imposibil de vazut Varful Toaca (1904 m) din Mangalia.

Ceahlaul nu se ridica, nici pe departe, la altitudinea altor piscuri muntoase din România sau din tarile vecine. Cu toate acestea, in mod paradoxal, el este singurul masiv care poate fi vazut de la sute de kilometri departare. in anumite conditii atmosferice si de luminozitate solara, piscurile Ceahlaului se zaresc cu o deosebita claritate de pe tarmul Marii Negre si de pe malurile Nistrului. Gheorghe Asachi scria despre acest fenomen inca din anul 1859: „Corabierul de pe Marea Neagra vede piscul cel inalt al acestui munte, de la Capul Mangaliei si pâna la Cetatea Alba. Locuitorul de pe tarmul Nistrului vede soarele apunând dupa masa acestui munte, iar pastorul nomad, dupa ce si-a iernat turmele sale pe câmpiile Bugeacului, se intoarce catre casa având in vedere vârful Pionului, sau Ceahlaului”.

http://www.gardianul.ro/2007/09/30/actualitate-c24/misterele_ceahlaului_fenomene_paranormale_pe_muntele_lui_zamolxis-s102000.html

Sa luam in calcul urmatoarele distante Nistru-Toaca; locuitorii aflandu-se chiar pe malul Nistrului...

200 km
H = 10 m – obstacol vizual de 2792,5 metri

225 km
H = 10 m – obstacol vizual de 3582 metri

250 km
H = 10 – obstacol vizual de 4469 metri

Deci, absolut imposibil sa observam apusul Soarelui in spatele varfului Toaca, de pe malul Nistrului, fara sa luam in calcul suprafata plata/plana a pamantului intre cele doua puncte de observatie.

Eu nu ma joc Abel, pun la bataie cea mai formidabila baza de date la ora actuala, de aceea am fost banat cu salbaticie pe astronomy si pe stiintaazi, pt. ca le distrug toate argumentele imediat, si le arat ca au acceptat, fara sa experimenteze chiar ei insasi, teoria complet gresita a atractiei gravitationale, vezi demonstratia de la cele doua siruri Aether Pressure...

De asemenea viata nu ar fi putut sa apara la intamplare, vezi demonstratia completa de la Unraveling DNA...in limba romana material incendiar:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/184/view-posts/188455
http://www.neogen.ro/group/36777/view-posts/74401

Newton, Galilei, Koppernigk, Kepler, Einstein, conducerea Nasa, fac parte DIN ACEEASI ORGANIZATIE SECRETA, DEDICATA DISTRUGERII TUTUROR CELORLALTE RELIGII, SI A INSTAURARII NWO, DE ACEEA AU MINTIT DE LA BUN INCEPUT, PENTRU A NE ASCUNDE CINE SUNTEM SI MAI ALES UNDE NE AFLAM...

E greu sa gasesc sentimente de simpatie pentru electron cel incorect dar am nevoie sa ma respect pe mine insumi asa ca nu pot sa fiu nici eu incorect cu el. Idiot nu este in mod sigur, asa cum zici tu sandokhan, eventual este incorect, negativist, rauvoitor sau agresiv, slujitor al raului sau cum vrei tu sa spui ca rezulta ca atitudine din postarile lui. Atitudinea lui va atrage "raul augur" asupra lui si e doar problema lui. Doar atitudinea lui poate fi condamnata nu el! (pdv al ortodoxiei). In caz ca te angrenezi intr-o disputa pe acelasi diapazon cu al lui, raul augur trece si asupra ta sau chiar devii un "pol de atractie" al raului augur ca si el. Raul augur este o notiune imprumutata din filozofia chineza. El exista ca si "bunul augur" care poate fi atras printr-o atitudine pozitiva, blajina, intelegatoare, corecta; se mai numeste iubire sau atractie in sensul cel mai general. Raul augur fiind atras prin atitudinea de respingere in general (ura, negativism, pacat, etc. , in diversele sale forme particulare).

In privinta Pamantului plat, fara a fi specialist, imi exprim parerea ca din moment ce lumea asta e o parere, o iluzie, maya (fapt subliniat de multe religii sau invataturi antice dar si de fizica moderna care nu pote gasi "bucatica de materie"), e imposibil de definit/stabilit ce e "plat" si ce e "rotund" ( poliedric, mosor cu gaura centrala, etc). Diferentierea poate sa apara doar in anumite conditii, in urma unor conventii intre noi. Cate conventii, tot atatea rezultate...
Te-as ruga sa-mi explici de ce un vapor, pe mare, (poate fi si Neagra) , sau pe ocean nu "vede" la mai mult de 20 km (cifra din memorie, poate ma insel). Conform sustinerilor tale, ar trebui ca de pe faleza din Constanta sa fie vizibili malul/si muntii/ Caucaz sau turcesti. Sau macar navele aflate in larg la 100...200 km ??? Sunt trei intrebari aici dar au acelasi continut. Ma intereseaza parerea ta, explicativa.

Nu stiu daca exista relatari despre Caucaz/Turcia; trebuie sa stim distanta exacta, poate ca exista asemenea accounts, ar fi interesant...

Pe mare, avem la dispozitie aceste relatari:

https://2img.net/h/oi22.tinypic.com/2vcg55z.png
https://2img.net/h/oi24.tinypic.com/wjxpg6.png
https://2img.net/h/oi21.tinypic.com/dfjfoj.png
https://2img.net/h/oi24.tinypic.com/123qgd3.png
https://2img.net/h/oi23.tinypic.com/2l9hxrs.png

How does your model of the earth explain these explicitly detailed accounts from these independent observers?

https://2img.net/h/oi22.tinypic.com/2vcg55z.png explica ceea ce autorul a vazut la Capetown, si anume, ca a observat cum corpul navei dispare mai intai, cu ochiul liber, dar cand s-a uitat prin binoclu, a vazut clar de tot intreg corpul navei...pana cand si acesta a disparut, data fiind limita/capacitatea acelui binoclu...

https://2img.net/h/oi24.tinypic.com/wjxpg6.png explica cum autorul a vazut cu ochiul liber cum dispare corpul navei de la vreo 10 mile distanta; dupa a pus binoclul la ochi, corpul navei a aparut in intregime...lucru imposibil pe un pamant de forma sferica, curbura fiind de peste 1.96 metri...si nu exista nici un fel de val al oceanului care sa mascheze corpul navei...

https://2img.net/h/oi21.tinypic.com/dfjfoj.png explica cum autorul a vazut, aflat pe un vas din apropiere, de la o distanta de 12 mile, corpul unei alte nave...insa aici ar trebui sa stim inaltimea de la care a fost facuta observatia...

https://2img.net/h/oi24.tinypic.com/123qgd3.png autorul a putut sa vada, de pe un yacht de mici dimensiuni, corpul altui yacht, de la o distanta de 12 mile sau 19.2 km, curbura fiind de 7.2 metri, iarasi fapt imposibil pe un pamant de forma sferica...

https://2img.net/h/oi23.tinypic.com/2l9hxrs.png declaratia unui pilot de vas care a vazut o alta nava, prin luneta, DE LA O DISTANTA DE 200 DE MILE, distanta fiind confirmata de autoritatile din Bombay...200 de mile = 320 de km, curbura fiind de 2 kilometri...nici mama refractiei optice nu ar fi putut sa explice acest lucru...iar refractia atmosferica, asa cum ati vazut din pozele in care sunt infatisati muntii Bucegi tocmai din Bucuresti, nu joaca nici un rol...decat poate la Arctic/Antarctica, cand, sub anumite conditii gheata va fi reflectata de un strat de nori aflati la joasa inaltime...dar nu si detaliile specifice...

Pe uscat, un reper vizual ca Varful Toaca, de exemplu, va fi mult mai usor de observat, asa cum vezi din relatarile facute de G. Asachi...asa cum vezi din acele cifre postate, de pe malul Nistrului nu poti vedea in nici un fel si in nici un chip apusul soarelui dupa Varful Toaca...obstacolul vizual fiind cu cel putin 1 km mai mare decat inaltimea varfului propriu-zis, 800 metri.

Da, am citit aceste relatari si nu am nici un motiv sa ma indoiesc ca sunt conforme cu realitatea, nu conteaza ca sunt din 1895. (Pe anumite portiuni Pamantul chiar e plat sau concav, nu convex; am mai facut candva remarca ca sunt pante chiar in tara la noi pe care masinile "urca" cu motoarele oprite!) Dar aceste marturii prezentate aici sunt o minoritate in comparatie cu cazul general al suprafetie oceanice, marine, etc, care "inghite" treptat navele fapt (re)cunoscut chiar si in aceste texte, tangential, ca si "cunoastere anterioara", cunoastere rezultata nu numai din auzite ci din viata pe mare. De ar fi plata suprafata marii, observatiile prezentate mai sus ar fi "sistematice" , orice marinar le-ar marturisi si atunci nici o conspiratie nu i-ar putea opri pe "prostii de marinari" (in sensul de neinstruiti) sa strige in gura mare ca e "plata".

Eu am intrebat in postarea anterioara situandu-ma pe linia metodei, folosite si in matematica, conform careia daca ai dedus o formula (aici o ipoteza bazata pe niste relatari credibile) pentru termenul de rang "n", in mod obligatoriu o verifici/aplici pentru "n + 1"). In cazul nostru, te apuci si verifici nu numai Toaca si vreo doua stramtori ci si orice alta directie si loc de pe Pamant, si nu numai printr-o metoda ci prin mai multe, inclusiv "vazutul de sus" din cosmos. Si avem filme facute din cosmos. Cu duiumul.
Daca ai fi spus ca lumina e curba si ca atare Pamantul plat se vede "rotund" comparativ cu raza de lumina (curba, dar considerata dreapta de noi cu simturile noastre limitate) as fi mers pe ideea asta intrucat nimeni nu a dovedit ca lumina are traiectorie dreapta intrucat masuratorile se fac raportandu-ne la ea si raportand-o pe ea insasi la ea insasi.

Ca idee, o singura masuratoare (observatie) nu e o dovada. Nici doua sau mai multe ci generalizarea lor la "n + 1". In plus , orice alta masuratoare ce le contrazice pe primele "le arunca in aer". Asta e realitatea tehnica.

Exprimarea ta este prea complicata pentru un fapt atat de simplu: NU AI CUM sa vezi Toaca de pe malul Nistrului, si apusul Soarelui dupa acest varf muntos, ori se vede ori nu se vede, diferenta de cel putin 800 de metri (si aici am fost generos cu 10 m pe mal, cand de fapt ar trebui sa luam 2-3 metri) anuleaza orice alt argument posibil; obstacolul vizual intre Mangalia si Toaca este de cel putin 12 km.

Nu ma indoiesc ca exista relatari similare all over the world, nu le-am cercetat, Muntii Stancosi, Himalaya, si altele...

Uite un exemplu pe lacul Michigan, sa-l revedem...


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.

Si ai si pozele de pe lacul Ontario...Hamilton, Grimsby, St. Catharines...

MM, iata material interesant, si fascinant, despre cum sunt eliminati studentii care indraznesc sa critice in vreun fel TR:

http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html

vezi sectiunea: Special Relativity Theory: Beyond Criticism

But relativity dissidents are routinely censored from presenting their ideas at conferences or having them published in the scientific literature. John E. Chappell, Jr., the late director of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (an organization of relativity critics), relates the following suppression story: (22)

One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since. I ran into it in 1985, when I read a paper arguing for absolute simultaneity at that year's International Congress on the History of Science. After I finished, the Danish chairman made some courteous remarks about dissidents he had learned about in Scandinavia, and then turned to the audience for questions. The first speaker was one of a group of about 4 young physics students in the back. He launched immediately into a horrible tirade of verbal abuse, accusing me of being entirely wrong in my analysis, a simplification of the Melbourne Evans analysis-'Evans is wrong; you are wrong,' he shouted. He accused me of being way out of line to present my 'faulty' arguments on his prestigious campus. When I started to ask him 'Then how would you explain...', he loudly interrupted me with 'I don't have to explain anything.' The rest of the audience felt so disturbed by all this, that the question session was essentially destroyed."

Such reactions are not uncommon. To even begin to criticize Einsteins's theory of special relativity has become a scientific heresy of the highest order. The prevailing attitude of the physical establishment is that anyone who doubts the validity of this "bedrock of modern physics" is insane, and that trying to refute it is a symptom of "psychosis"(23).

Dissent is no longer respected, or even tolerated. Evidence to the contrary can no longer be communicated, for journals will refuse to publish it (23).

vezi si: The myth of the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, Big Bang Cosmology - Beyond Empirical Falsification.

Sunt de acord, le-am mai vazut in alte postari dar aici e vorba cu totul de cateva probe. Nu le-am contestat. Din pacate ele nu sunt probe/dovezi ca Pamantul ar fi plat ci doar pot fi interpretate asa si inteleg ca pe baza lor sustii ca Pamantul e plat.
Din pacate, in continuare, pentru ca interpretarea ta sa fie acceptata si de altii, respectiv sa fie adevarata, ar trebui ca sa poata fi confirmata prin verificare nu numai pe lacul Michigan sau Gibraltar ci oriunde, peste tot, pe toata "coaja" Pamantului, prin mii si mii de alte asemenea observatii asemenea celor prezentate de tine. Din pacate nu ai mii ci doar cateva.

In plus, interpretarea ta, ca sa fie valida, ar trebui sa reziste/sa nu poata fi contestata de nici un fel de alte masuratori, observatii. Ceea ce nu se intampla si n-am pomenit anterior decat multimea "infinita" de marinari care te contesta prin stiinta lor practica si filmele facute din spatiu de catre nenumarati cosmonauti si misiuni cosmice, ca sa nu mai vorbim si de puzderia de sateliti automati care transmit nonstop imaginile Pamantului. Prea multi oameni, nu pot fi controlati toti de catre "conspiratorii sefi".

Pe de alta parte, dovezile tale pot avea alte explicatii/interpretari. De ex. forma poliedrica a Pamantului, (re)cunoscuta. Se stie, caci s-a dovedit, de abaterile de la forma sferica a c. gravitational. Astfel, ar trebui sa existe nu numai portiuni de drumuri pe care masinile "urca" fara motor sau de suprafete plate ci si de suprafete concave! (Nu ai cumva vreuna?)

Desigur voi urmari in continuare cu interes postarile si teoriile ciudate pe care le sustii odata ce sunt de acord cu libertatea parerilor si al doilea pentru ca vi cu argumente/documentari excelente si interesante/ si nu ataci asemenea unor "electroni".

Extrem de interesant materialul cu contestatarii TR-ului. Nu credeam sa fie chiar asa!

Toate acele relatari ale marinarilor, de care tu amintesti, pot fi usor explicate: daca vom calcula cu precizie pozitia lor precum si a navei observate, vom vedea ca sunt indeplinite intocmai conditiile necesare pentru a intelege ca forma pamantului este de fapt plata.

Se pare ca uiti tot timpul de traiectoria norilor (vezi materialul aferent), care ne dovedeste clar si sigur (vizionabili de oricine oriunde) ca pamantul este stationar si nu se roteste in jurul propriei axe cu 1600 km/hr (ecuator).

Se pare ca uiti tot timpul de inexistenta conceptului de atractie gravitationala, fapt dovedit absolut, cu care ai fost si tu de acord dupa ce ai citit ce am postat; fara atractie TOT esafodajul nenorocit al teoriei pamantului rotund cade la pamant, precum si toate misiunile complet false Nasa/Mir.

Am postat deja dovezile despre falsificarea misiunilor nasa, precum si modalitatea de functionare a satelitilor...am crezut deja ca aceste lucruri sunt intelese...

Noi ne "ciocnim" cam degeaba aici, pentru ca dialogul nostru, pentru a avea efect, ar trebui sa fie vizionat de milioane de profesori universitari, dusi de nas ca niste copii (si rasplatiti cu fonduri de cercetare, precum si participarea la 60 de conferinte stiintifice), care sa inceapa sa spuna adevarul peste tot.

Pe un pamant de forma de poliedru, avem aceeasi problema: atractia gravitationala, care nu exista.

Teorii ciudate? Nicidecum, nu din partea mea; eu aduc dovezi, daca spun ceva, vin cu material bibliografic/explicativ suficient pentru a arata ca am dreptate.

Nu spui nimic, se pare, despre pozele postate: care dovedesc clar si fara indoiala ca nu exista curbura peste suprafete de la 13 km la 65 km.

Ai si material video:

Din nou si documentarul Islamic History of Europe, iarasi nici un fel de curbura vizuala, autorul filmat chiar pe plaja spaniola, se poate vedea clar tarmul african (which shows between 2:53 and 3:55, the author filmed on the beach (Spain), and with clear images of the opposite shoreline (Morocco), we can see the trees and waves splashing onto the shores):


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


In acest documentar, Islamic History of Europe, vom privi, intre 2:56 si 3:00 cum autorul ne arata unde se afla, tarmul spaniol, aratand apoi cu mana spre tarmul african.

Si dupa aceea, intre 3:02 si 3:07, vedem clar celalalt tarm al stramtoarei Gibraltar, FARA NICI UN FEL DE CURBURA VIZUALA, la o curbura de 3.3 metri ar fi fost imposibil sa vedem locul unde tarmul intalneste marea, daca dam full-screen view (zoom) putem vedea cum se sparg valurile de tarmul african.

Acelasi lucru si intre 3:19 - 3:22, la fel si intre 3:43 si 3:45, celalat tarm se vede clar fara curbura, se pot distinge (in full screen view) valurile cum se sparg de tarmul african.

Documentarul 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

Intre 38:28 - 38:35, se poate vedea clar tarmul african peste Stramtoarea Gibraltar, fara nici un fel de curbura vizuala (in acest caz de 3.3 metri).

Relatarea din Holland Michigan este extrem de precisa, si nu lasa loc interpretarilor: locuitori ai orasului, personalul din paza de coasta au vazut clar cladirile din Milwaukee, de la 128 km departare, fapt absolut imposibil pe un pamant de forma rotunda.

Nu uita de explozia de Tungusk, care dovedeste iarasi, cu marturii precise, ca forma pamantului este plata si nu rotunda:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/36777/view-posts/83197

Am recunoscut ca ai cateva dovezi. Cate? 1) Doi marinari, Capetowm si Sf. Elena parca; 2) Inexistenta atractiei gravitationale; 3) Gibraltarul; 4) Holland Michigan; 5) Tungusk; 6) Toaca-Marea N.
Am enumerat 6 dovezi, or fi zece. Putin, prea putin. Si , sa nu uitam ca am fost de acord ca nu exista atractie, dar exista ceva care face ca lucrurile se desfasoare ca si cand ar fi o atractie. Ceea ce nu-i totuna. Exista o cauza , deocamdata indeterminabila ptr. stiinta actuala, care face planetele sa aiba o miscare, sa fie vartejuri, forte, etc, chiar daca interpretarile noastre (inclusiv newtoniene) sunt inexacte.

Am spus de asemenea ca ai nevoie de mii si mii de confirmari (pe care nu le ai deocamdata) si ca orice observatie, ce contrazice exemplele/dovezile tale izolate, anuleaza ipoteza pamantului plat. Am dat aici exemplul milioaneleor de marinari care cunosc , cu totii, cum dispare o nava la orizont - mai intai coca apoi treptat si suprastructura navei care se "afunda" dupa curbura orizontului de apa. In comparatie cu cei cativa marinari pe care ii ai drept martori de partea ta, celelalte milioane te contrazic.

Falsificarea tuturor misiunilor nasa, mir , etc. o fi posibila pe ici pe colo dar nu toate.
In ceea ce priveste traiectoria norilor, se stie f. bine cum se misca sub forma de cicloane si anticicloane (vartejuri) si se cunosc cauzele exacte ale miscarilor lor; n-am inteles chiar bine de ce sunt totusi atat de importante inregistrarile meteo din apropierea polilor pentru a putea prezice vremea/si miscarea norilor/ in Europa de ex. Fara ele meteorologii nu pot prevedea vremea!

In rest, desigur ai dreptate sa continui pentru ca toate informatiile stiintifice pe care le avem sunt in evolutie si prin urmare contestabile.

Am crezut ca am rezolvat demult chestiunea asta...de aceea am postat tot materialul aferent, de la http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm (why a ship's hull disappears before its masthead) la secventa celor 3 fotografii de pe malul plajei din St.Catharines...pe un pamant de forma plata, corpul navei va dispare inaintea catargului...

Nu l-ai citit indeajuns pe Velikovsky...cyclones and anticyclones...

Cyclones, characterized by low pressure and by winds blowing toward their centers, move counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This movement of air currents in cyclonic vortices is generally explained as the effect of the earth’s rotation.

Anticyclones, characterized by high pressure and by winds blowing from their centers move clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. The movement of anticyclones has not been explained and is regarded as enigmatic.

Cyclones and anticyclones are considered a problem of fluidal motion with highest or lowest pressure in the center. As the movement of anticyclones cannot be explained by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and rotation, it must be concluded that the rotation of cyclones is also unexplained.

Nu ai citit Pamantul Stationar, Traiectoria Norilor...te rog sa o faci...cea mai formidabila demonstratie, care te va surprinde...cateva citate de acolo...

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

This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v|. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World).

However, such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.

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.

MAI DEPARTE.

Din cartea Galileo Was Wrong:

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.

Deci, MM, demonstratia este extrem de clara...te rog sa o citesti cu atentie...

Care este explicatia gravitatiei? Exact cea mentionata de Newton, cea enuntata de Tesla, si cea care am mentionat-o aici: PRESIUNEA AETHERULUI CARE ESTE ABSORBIT DE PARTEA RECEPTIVA A ATOMULUI, VORTEX-URILE NUMITE ELECTRONI; INTRERUPEREA ACESTUI FENOMEN/CIRCUIT DA NASTERE LA LEVITATIE, VEZI LINKURILE CU TIBETAN SOUND LEVITATION. BOSONUL LUI E. BABBITT (COPIAT DE P. HIGGS) FACE LEGATURA DINTRE AETHER SI LUMEA FIZICA PRIN ELECTRONI SI POSITRONI (RECEPTIV/EMISIV).

CITESTE DIN NOU CE A SPUS NEWTON: PRESIUNEA AETHERULUI DREPT SINGURA CAUZA ADEVARATA A GRAVITATIEI; CITESTE CE SPUNE NEWTON MAI DEPARTE, ORBITELE CORPURILOR CERESTI SUNT EXPLICATE DE ROTATIA AETHERULUI, AETHER EDDIES (CUM LE SPUNE EL), DIFERIT DE PRESIUNE.

TE ROG SA ACCESEZI CU GRIJA SI CU ATENTIE TOT CE AM POSTAT LA HUBLOUL FERMECAT.

TOATE MISIUNILE, TOATE, AU FOST COMPLET SI ABSOLUT FALSIFICATE: VOYAGER, GEMINI, APOLLO, MARINER, SKYLAB, GAGARIN, LEONOV, SALIUT, SOYUZ, SPACE SHUTTLE, TOATE.

GIBRALTAR, ONTARIO, ENGLISH CHANNEL, TOACA-MANGALIA, MICHIGAN AU PUNCTE DE REPERE EXTREM DE CLARE, DE ACEEA LE PUTEM FOLOSI, INTELEGI?

IN URMATORUL MESAJ REVENIM LA ENGLISH CHANNEL PENTRU TINE, si pentru Abel, ne distram putin cu miscarea de precesie.