New photographs/New proofs

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.

Frumos oraş!

O noua poza de exceptie, facuta chiar pe plaja Cap Gris Nez, de catre un turist olandez; ne aflam la 2 metri inaltime, nu am putea sa vedem NIMIC sub altitudinea de 65 metri de pe tarmul englez, White Cliffs Dover.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/filipenwanda/1469024243/in/photostream/



The full view of the White Cliffs; even you want to take those photographers to, say 5 meters, it still does not make any difference, we see the entire portion of the cliffs, not just the top 37 meters (for the lowest height of the cliffs).

Now the full view, top to bottom, the entirety of the cliffs, from just 47 meters in altitude (45 + 2)--to see this thing, on a round earth, you will have to ascend all the way to 90 meters.



In order to remove all doubts as to how those cliffs look, what the height is, here are many photographs for you to look at:


http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b89d5_0020000203085_00_600.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jane_sanders/2463515177/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apeofjungle/2145058531/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/orodreth_au/1472106076/

http://img3.travelblog.org/Photos/45850/195120/t/1452438-White-Cliffs-of-Dover-0.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44798000/jpg/_44798359_waves_416.jpg

http://www.a-taste-of-france.com/images/dover-white-cliffs.jpg


http://www.europeportreviews.com/WesternEuropeImages/DoverWhiteCliffs.jpg
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/770/541558.JPG

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesgold/28405363/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-e-mr-g/129592362/
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1387/1409039169_96c7b306c0_b.jpg

O noua poza: nici un fel de curbura peste Canalul Manecii, stancile de pe tarmul Francez pot fi vizionate de la baza la varf, iar vapoarele din imagine NU FAC parte din vreo panta ascendenta/descendenta.

Realizata la Langdon Cliffs, inaltime maxima de 100 metri.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/13035641@N00/1347234527/

Iar acum din poza din mesajul precedent, marita cu 200%, vedem clar the Dover Lighthouse, 32 metri inaltime, in partea stanga a imaginii; poza realizata chiar pe plaja Cap Gris Nez de un turist olandez:

O alta poza senzationala, facuta de pe stancile Cap Gris Nez (45 metri inaltime); vedem White Cliffs Dover, top to bottom, precum si Dover Harbour in stanga jos:



Aceste imagini nu ar putea fi vazute DECAT de la o inaltime de cel putin 90.4 metri, si chiar si atunci curbura peste Canalul Manecii ar fi evidentiata in poze (22.6 metri)...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kia54/2626045597/

Am reusit sa recuperez adresele originale pentru urmatoarele fotografii facute chiar pe plaja Cap Gris Nez:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9979943/Dove-Dover (download to watch at normal size)

Si acum fotografiile, in prima vedem fotografii la lucru chiar pe plaja, fotografie numita (vezi mai sus) Shipspotting:



Fotografia Shipspotting, vedem clar White Cliffs Dover, top to bottom, nici un fel de curbura, acel vas nu se afla pe vreo panta ascendenta sau descendenta:



Iata portiunea aferenta a stancilor White Dover:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guillaumeo/216693974/

sandokhan a scris: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

Hello there,

How do you know that this photo was taken from 52.8 Km away? And what was the height of the camera?

As for the complete details, I can't see them in this photo, it's too dark. Do you have a photo taken during the day, so we could compare those details?

You are missing h...good question...

Grimsby is located right next to lake Ontario; the biggest altitude in this city are the Niagara Escarpment hills which surround it; 20 meters all the way to 45 meters (Beamer Falls Conservation Area).

More than 2 km away from Grimsby, are hills which have 170 meters in height.

Here is the info from the site itself:

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

Grimsby - Toronto 52.8 km distance, with 55 meters curvature

Now, to see those details from Grimsby, you would have to ascend all the way to 220 meters, there is no building or landform with that height; if we go to that 170 meter portion, we would have then 55 km, with an altitude of 237 meters required, again impossible.

Here are more photos taken by Ms. Hepburn from Grimsby (maximum height there 45 meters, Beamer Falls Conservation Area)




All the details of the buildings of Toronto, to see these things, we would have to be at an altitude of 220 meters in Grimsby, no such thing exists there.

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto1.jpg
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto2.jpg

More photographs from Grimsby:



Remember, to see these details, top to bottom, you have to go to 220 meters in Grimsby.



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

So there you have it; ZERO CURVATURE OVER 53 KM DISTANCE...if you still do not believe it, you are free to go to Grimsby and see it for yourself...

See also:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/link-to-stiintaaziro-forum-raspunsuri-t48.htm#394 (photo taken from 45 meters altitude in Beamer Falls)

sandokhan a scris:You are missing h...good question...

Grimsby is located right next to lake Ontario; the biggest altitude in this city are the Niagara Escarpment hills which surround it; 20 meters all the way to 45 meters (Beamer Falls Conservation Area).

More than 2 km away from Grimsby, are hills which have 170 meters in height.

Here is the info from the site itself:

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

Oh, so the site where you copied the picture from, says it was taken from 33 miles away. But, there is no indication of the height, nor does it say that it was taken from Grimsby!
If those hills you are talking about are 33 miles away from Toronto, then they are the perfect spot for shooting that picture.

So, the fact that we can see the buildings doesn't mean there is no curvature as you wrongly imply, just that the photo was taken from sufficient height. (I can't see the shore, so I don't know how much is really hidden by the pitch-black water)

Nice photo, by the way.

Now, to see those details from Grimsby, you would have to ascend all the way to 220 meters, there is no building or landform with that height; if we go to that 170 meter portion, we would have then 55 km, with an altitude of 237 meters required, again impossible.

How did you compute such numbers? How do you know those hills are 55 Km away?

Anyway, simple geometry shows that from a height of 170m, you can easily see those buildings even from 55 km away, given that they aren't built at lake level, but obviously higher.

I appreciate the fact that you have joined our discussion; but not the way you try to insinuate your way around; certainly, your attempts to hide under the rug a curvature of 55 meters is laughable!

Now, did you read what I just wrote yesterday?

33 miles = the distance from Grimsby to Toronto, and Ms. Hepburn LIVES in Grimsby, you got it?

I indicated already how the landform/landscape of Grimsby is arranged: 20 meters hills (Niagara Escarpment), 45 meter hills (Beamer Falls), and located at more than 2 km from the shoreline, are hills which reach to 170 meters.

Now, the formula is simple:


(courtesy of stiintaazi.ro)

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

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

Then, immediately, we obtain:

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

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF []

If you add 2 km to the 53 km, you get 55 km; and to see those lights you have to ascend to 237 meters.

Now, look again at the zoom pictures I posted:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/d6/9d/673e7b52_0010000368417_00_600.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/d6/9d/673e74d0_0010000368416_00_600.jpg

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto1.jpg
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto2.jpg

If you compare the nighttime photography with the picture you chose to debate around, you will see that they match very well; you could not see those lights unless you ascend to 220-237 meters.

Here is a photo taken at night, from Grimsby:



And another one:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1381663635053310592jdpoIu

Do you understand what we are discussing here? A CURVATURE MEASURING 55 METERS, THAT IS AN 18 STORY BUILDING, A MOUNTAIN OF WATER WITH THAT HEIGHT, RIGHT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAKE!!!

More photos from Grimsby:







NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER, NO ASCENDING SLOPE, NO MIDPOINT MOUNTAIN OF WATER OF 55 METERS, GET IT?

View of Grimsby from the Escarpment at Beamer Falls Conservation Area.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037881/



Let us go right to the next photograph, taken from Beamer Falls Conservation Area:

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

The title of the photograph: 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.

What do you say we visit lake Michigan?

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

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

Can you see Milwaukee from Holland?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staff writer Nate Reens contributed to this report.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

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

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

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

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

sandokhan a scris:I appreciate the fact that you have joined our discussion; but not the way you try to insinuate your way around; certainly, your attempts to hide under the rug a curvature of 55 meters is laughable!

I don't attempt to hide under the rug anything, the curvature (which covers a big part of the buildings) is perfectly visible in other photos, taken from lower heights.

33 miles = the distance from Grimsby to Toronto, and Ms. Hepburn LIVES in Grimsby, you got it?

How did you determine the distance from Grimsby to Toronto?
You say that Ms. Hepburn lives in Grimsby (how do you know that?), but even if it were the case, it doesn't mean she didn't go to the hills to take the photo, especially since height is important. On Ms. Hepburn's site it only says that the photo was taken 33 miles away, and not that it was taken from Grimsby. Are you inventing those things just to convince yourself you're right? I won't swallow your lies, I need to see what proofs you can show that would support your claims about he place the photo was taken from.

Now, the formula is simple:


(courtesy of stiintaazi.ro)

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

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

Then, immediately, we obtain:

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

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF []

If you add 2 km to the 53 km, you get 55 km; and to see those lights you have to ascend to 237 meters.

Please give me the numbers you used to compute the value of 237 meters.

Here is a photo taken at night, from Grimsby:

You keep claiming that the photos were taken from Grimsby, but what is the proof?

Do you understand what we are discussing here? A CURVATURE MEASURING 55 METERS, THAT IS AN 18 STORY BUILDING, A MOUNTAIN OF WATER WITH THAT HEIGHT, RIGHT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAKE!!!

Have you ever stopped to think how a "mountain of water" 55 m high, with a base of more than 50.000 m, and a smooth slope would look, seen from a height of 170 meters? have you ever computed "the slope" that "mountain" has ? Make a drawing with a convenient scale and you'll understand.

NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER, NO ASCENDING SLOPE, NO MIDPOINT MOUNTAIN OF WATER OF 55 METERS, GET IT?

No need to yell like this. Please remain calm. Make the scaled down drawing and you'll see what "the midpoint mountain" means (and looks like) in this case.

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.

You work under the false assumption that the photos where most of the buildings are visible were taken from a low height, something you can't prove.

What you seem to ignore are the photos where the missing part of the buildings, caused by the curvature of the water, is obvious. How do you explain that on a flat lake?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



ACUM POZA FACUTA CHIAR DE PE BEAMER FALLS CONSERVATION AREA:

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

Titlul pozei: As seen from Beamer Falls Conservation Area



INALTIMEA BEAMER FALLS: 45 METRI

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

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

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

Mai ai ceva de spus?

Mai departe.

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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uite site-urile ei:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

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

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

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

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

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

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

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

Tunguska Tesla

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

Laboratorul de a unde a fost efectuat experimentul Tungusk:

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uite, looky here, for you:

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

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



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.

What do you say we visit lake Michigan?

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

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

Can you see Milwaukee from Holland?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staff writer Nate Reens contributed to this report.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

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

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your question #1:

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

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

HERE IS THE ACTUAL MESSAGE:

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

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

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


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

Your question #2:

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

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

Let us take the zoom as an example:

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

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

Remember the other zoom taken from Grimsby:



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

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

sandokhan a scris:You are showing to everybody your true reasons for posting here...

I'm obviously showing that your so called proofs are nothing more than lies and laughably and wrongly interpreted data. You've noticed that? You're very observant!

the opening message was quite clear about all the facts, I am very careful when using words, rest assured about it...

Yes, you somewhat forgot to say that you have no idea what height had the camera when the photo was taken, because from a sufficient height, as the nearby hills provide, there is no problem in seeing the buildings over the lake.

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

Your question #1:

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

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

HERE IS THE ACTUAL MESSAGE:

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

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

I asked you how did you compute the "220" height, the actual numbers that you've used. You still avoid doing so.

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

That might be the case, but there are some hills 170m in height, which do allow for the full view. Try to compute again the minimum height necessary for that photo.

Your question #2:

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

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

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

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

I'm not the one spouting neverending and repeating junk, in a laughable hope that the issue is lost in the process. Start answering the questions presented here, if you care about embaressment.

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

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

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

Now, the formula is simple:

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif (courtesy of stiintazi.ro/forum)

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

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

Then, immediately, we obtain:

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

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF []

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

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

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

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

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

HERE ARE HER OWN WORDS:

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

33 miles = 52.8 km

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



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

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

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

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


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...



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

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

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

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

Here is a panorama of the Toronto skyline:

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

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

Beamer Falls Conservation Area 45 meters in height:

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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



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

LAKE MICHIGAN

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TWO WELL-KNOWN DOCUMENTARIES:

1. The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

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

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

2. Islamic History of Europe

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

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

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

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

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





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

Hai si pe English Channel...

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

Photographers right on the Cap Gris Beach:

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

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

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



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





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


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

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



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



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

Ha-ha-ha!!

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

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

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

Ha-ha-ha!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Beamer Falls Conservation Area 45 meters in height:

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

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

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

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

sandokhan a scris:watch the trajectories of the clouds in the sky on any day...the best proof for the stationary earth...

Ha-ha-ha!

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

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

Ha-ha-ha!

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

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

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

Here is Einstein himself acknowledging this fact:

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


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


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

The Foucault pendulum hoax, here in all its details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FROM THERE:

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

Conclusion

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

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

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

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

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

GOT IT?

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

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?