"Equator" problem

  • 454 Replies
  • 64715 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #90 on: October 20, 2014, 07:18:43 AM »
Now who's vanishing point? Yours or the camera's?  The digital camera's sensor might not be adequate enough to see the boat out on the ocean while a human eye can?

What exactly you don't understand?

Do these (following) words can help you to finally comprehend the true law of perspective:

From the several cases now advanced, which are selected from a great number of instances involving the same law, the third proposition (on page 203) that "any distinctive part of a body will become invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body," is sufficiently demonstrated. It will therefore be readily seen that the hull of a receding ship obeying the same law must disappear on a plane surface, before the mast head. If it is put in the form of a syllogism the conclusion is inevitable:--

Any distinctive part of a receding object becomes invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same object.

The hull is a distinctive part of a ship.

Ergo, the hull of a receding or outward bound ship must disappear before the whole, inclusive of the mast head.

To give the argument a more practical and nautical character it may be stated as follows:

That part of any receding body which is nearest to the surface upon which it moves, contracts, and becomes in-visible before the parts which are further away from such surface--as shown in figs. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70.

The hull of a ship is nearer to the water--the surface on which it moves--than the mast head.

Ergo, the hull of an outward bound ship must be the first to disappear.

This will be seen mathematically in the following diagram, fig. 83.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #91 on: October 20, 2014, 07:41:26 AM »
Now who's vanishing point? Yours or the camera's?  The digital camera's sensor might not be adequate enough to see the boat out on the ocean while a human eye can?

What exactly you don't understand?

Do these (following) words can help you to finally comprehend the true law of perspective:

From the several cases now advanced, which are selected from a great number of instances involving the same law, the third proposition (on page 203) that "any distinctive part of a body will become invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body," is sufficiently demonstrated. It will therefore be readily seen that the hull of a receding ship obeying the same law must disappear on a plane surface, before the mast head. If it is put in the form of a syllogism the conclusion is inevitable:--

Any distinctive part of a receding object becomes invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same object.

The hull is a distinctive part of a ship.

Ergo, the hull of a receding or outward bound ship must disappear before the whole, inclusive of the mast head.

To give the argument a more practical and nautical character it may be stated as follows:

That part of any receding body which is nearest to the surface upon which it moves, contracts, and becomes in-visible before the parts which are further away from such surface--as shown in figs. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70.

The hull of a ship is nearer to the water--the surface on which it moves--than the mast head.

Ergo, the hull of an outward bound ship must be the first to disappear.

This will be seen mathematically in the following diagram, fig. 83.
And this addresses my question how?  My question is if the digital sensor inside the camera has the ability to discern the ship?  Or possibly the video encoding that took place muddied the distinction between the hull and the water line.

How large do you think a hull is versus how large a mast is?  If a hull is 30 feet, according to the law of perspective you quoted, the vanishing point is 3000 times that so 90,000 feet.  Which is between 15 and 20 miles away.  How would that disappear before a mast of say 2 feet in diameter which should vanish from sight in 6000 feet?

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #92 on: October 20, 2014, 09:23:06 AM »
And this addresses my question how?  My question is if the digital sensor inside the camera has the ability to discern the ship?  Or possibly the video encoding that took place muddied the distinction between the hull and the water line.

How large do you think a hull is versus how large a mast is?  If a hull is 30 feet, according to the law of perspective you quoted, the vanishing point is 3000 times that so 90,000 feet.  Which is between 15 and 20 miles away.  How would that disappear before a mast of say 2 feet in diameter which should vanish from sight in 6000 feet?

Your question is somehow misleading, the truth is that the vanishing point is at the distance of 3000 diameters of an receding object, the truth is also that RET and FET are in agreement concerning the fact that a hull of a ship disappears from our perspective before a mast, only the question is why and how it happens. A hull of a ship has larger diameter than a mast, but obviously in this case it is not the primary factor which decidedly determines order of sequences of ship's disappearance on the horizon, the primary factor is rather a true law of perspective. All i could do in my last attempt to help you out comprehending the real cause of this phenomena is to emphasise (once more) two excerpts from already linked  Rowbotham's explanatory chapter that deals with this phenomena:





« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 09:27:45 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #93 on: October 20, 2014, 10:41:36 AM »

Any distinctive part of a receding object becomes invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same object.
Nonsense.

Quote
The hull is a distinctive part of a ship.

Why does the bottom of the hull disappear first?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #94 on: October 20, 2014, 12:26:50 PM »

Any distinctive part of a receding object becomes invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same object.
Nonsense.

Quote
The hull is a distinctive part of a ship.

Why does the bottom of the hull disappear first?

Naturally because the bottom of the hull is a distinctive part of the ship.  Duh...
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sokarul

  • 17785
  • Discount Chemist
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #95 on: October 20, 2014, 03:45:50 PM »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #96 on: October 20, 2014, 09:05:30 PM »
Answer to post #76 : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za34.htm
And when waves or swells are minimal, objects still sink below the horizon.  Also, if one's line of sight is above the average wave height, then there's nothing to block the line of sight.

Quote
Why do we put word "level" in a phrase "water level" if the surface of all waters is not leveled but curved?
Because (assuming calm water) any one spot on the surface of a given body of water is level (not tilted).

Not tilted? Like the Earth? Hahahahaha...
Yeah, don't worry about it.  Some people can understand round objects, some can't.

Any distinctive part of a receding object becomes invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same object.

The hull is a distinctive part of a ship.
So what about those little 'distinctive' parts of a ship, such as people and windows in your "classical example" in post #85, that all disappear before the 'larger' parts, such as the hull?

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #97 on: October 21, 2014, 01:42:20 AM »
If the Earth is round then you should be able to plausibly explain this:

1: Lighthouses: http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html

2: Experiments on lake Michigan: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

3: Exact formula for counting visibility range for two heights and striking examples which render validity of FET beyond dispute: http://www.energeticforum.com/258148-post188.html

4: At sea the datum line is always a horizontal line - spherical trigonometry is never used - That all triangulation used at sea is PLANE, PROVES THAT THE SEA IS A PLANE : http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html

5: Railways: In 1862, the Houses of Lords and Commons issued an Order that all Railways were to be constructed on a Datum Horizontal line without allowing one inch for curvature.

6: Canals:

Example A: " The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening the Gates of the Baltic and North Sea Canal, in the spring of 1891. The canal starts at Hollenau, on the south side of Kiel Hay, and Joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth, It is 61 miles long, 200 feet wide at the surface and 85 feet at bottom, the depth being 28 feet. No locks are required, as the surface of the two seas is level."

Example B: Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for "curvature" ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company, — (Earth Review, October, 1893), " It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal, and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth." — Manchester Ship Canal Co., Engineer's Office, 19th February, 1892!

Example C:
A surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, writes to the Earth Review for January, 1896, as follows :

" In leveling, I work from Ordnance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level I work sometimes from what is known as the Wolverhampton level, this is said to be 473.19 feet above sea level ; sometimes I work from the Birmingham level, this is said to be 453.04 feet above sea level. Sometimes I work from the Walsal level, this is said to be 407.89 feet above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that, though each extends several miles, each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end ; not the least allowance being made for curvature, although if the earth were a globe, 112 feet ought to be allowed... One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life."

7: London to Moscow proof : In " Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 513, the following occurs:

"In North America, the basin or drainage of the Mississippi is estimated at 1.300.000 square miles, and that of the St. Lawrened at 600,000; while northward of the 50th parallel, extends an inhospitable FLAT of perhaps greater dimensions. . . . Next in order of importance is that section of Europe extending from the German Sea, through Prussia. Poland, and Russia, towards the Ural Mountains, presenting indifferently tracts of heath, sand and open pasture, and regarded by geographers as ONE VAST PLANE. So flat is the general profile of the region, that It has been remarked, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DRAW A LINE FROM LONDON TO MOSCOW, WHICH WOULD NOT PERCEPTIBLY VARY FROM A DEAD LEVEL."

The foregoing is a London-to-Moscow proof that the surface of the world is not globular.

8: Extraordinary flatness of the Earth's crust: These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is a level surface, and that, therefore, the world is not a globe. And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same unformity of evidence against the popular view. In " Nature and Man," by Professor W. B. Carpenter, article " The Deep Sea and its Contents," pages 320 and 321, the writer says :

"Nothing seems to have struck the "Challenger" surveyors more than the extraordinary FLATNESS (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the FLOOR OF THE GREAT OCEANIC AREA. . . . If the bottom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would Jind himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded bj- an elevated and deeply -sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."

9: RIVERS:
From the "Atlas of Physical Geography," by the Rev. T.Milner, M.A., I extract the following:

" Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles."

"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."

"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"

NOT THAT YOU CANNOT PLAUSIBLY EXPLAIN ABOVE FET UNDENIABLE PROOFS, YOU CANNOT EVEN START TO ARGUE AGAINST THE OBVIOUSNESS OF ABOVE ARGUMENTS!!!

One additional undeniable proof no. 10: EYES LEVELED HORIZON NO MATTER HOW HIGH YOU LIFT YOUR 'EYES' UP!!!

So, there is no doubt about the general shape of the surface of the Earth, the question is: How to resolve "Equator" problem, KNOWING VERY WELL that the surface of the Earth is Flat???

Be of some use after so long time (spent on this forum)!
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 01:45:31 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #98 on: October 21, 2014, 02:20:42 AM »
@cikljamas, what's with your 19th century obsession?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #99 on: October 21, 2014, 03:03:22 AM »
@cikljamas, what's with your 19th century obsession?

Let me show you one picture from 19th century:



Accompanying video: #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Flat Earth/Terra Plana

It is interesting how round earthers always evade concrete challenges by use of ridiculous "19th century "argument"" , but right after usage of that idiotic "argument" they aint got any problems with bringing forth "Eratostens" or "Pitagora" or any other 2 500 years old "argument".... i mean, i mean, i mean...#t=2m54s...." class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=2m54s....
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 03:05:32 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #100 on: October 21, 2014, 04:12:03 AM »
It's amazing reading over your so called proof's, how little you understand of physics, mathematics and engineering.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #101 on: October 21, 2014, 05:08:34 AM »
It's amazing reading over your so called proof's, how little you understand of physics, mathematics and engineering.

Let me show you how you little understand of anything:

Heliocentricity is not a logically plausible (let alone irrefutable) theory that is based on scientific data but is actually, purely based on a series of assumptions that were built-up over the last 200 years. For example many (but not all) of the assertions regarding astronomical distances between celestial bodies are based on the necessary assumption that the earth must be revolving around the sun.
 
But at the same time, these assumed distances have another function whereby they are deployed as some sort of supportive argument for the "trueness" of the heliocentric hypothesis. For example we are told that sun is too big to revolve around the earth, despite the fact that the sun's size was determined in the first place by assuming how big it must have to be in order to allow a heliocentric premise! Go figure. Other needed assumptions include:
 
■ the bendover earth (alleged 'tilt' of the earth's axis - a desperately needed heliocentric variable that has no basis in the physical world where the sun simply spirals from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn annually. Both of these tropic latitude lines are not tilted - they are at a 0° angle (= parallel) to the equator. The word "tropic" itself comes from the Greek term tropos, meaning turn, referring to the fact that the sun "turns back" at these lines that aren't tilted in any way,
 
■ the earth supposedly jittering around the sun at various speed levels (it orbits at a faster speed at one time, and then it goes relatively slower at another - then back faster again) but somehow, all this alleged speed-change remains unnoticeable),
 
■ the moon also being dragged along exactly at those same speed levels (100% complete synchronization with the wobbly earth despite being hundreds of thousands of miles away from it(!) Now how about that?,
 
■ even atmospheric gas (the air) being attached to the earth's surface (again completely synchronized but somehow (simultaneously) free-flowing enough to blow in every direction). These are just samples of the never shown, never detected, never scientifically observed absurdities that are required to save the appearances of the heliocentric model.

 Unproven Heliocentric Assumptions
When Heliocentrists failed to disprove the geocentric nature that we live in, they resorted to inventing assumptions, many of which are so absurd that the inventors themselves admit that they are unfalsifiable (by implication unscientific) thought-experiments. Some of these assumptions include:

    -    the alleged tilt of the earth's axis,
     
    -    the so called Copernican principle,
     
    -    positive stellar parallax,
     
    -    uniformitiy of the speed of light,
     
    -    lengh contraction
     
    -    time dilation
     
    -    denial of inertia (only accepting an imaginary and isolated "chosen" inertial frame of reference)
     
    -    the earth supposedly moving at a various speeds (in order to account for the observed eclipses)

These and many other assumptions are presented as evidence to each other. In other words one assumption is used in order to prove another assumption. In fact these assumptions are so fundamentally dependent on each other that one becomes meaningless without the other, which shows that heliocentrists don't refrain from applying deceit (circular reasoning in this case) in order to make their assertions believable.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #102 on: October 21, 2014, 05:44:16 AM »
Yeah, but what's with your 19th century obsession?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #103 on: October 21, 2014, 06:09:58 AM »
Yeah, but what's with your 19th century obsession?

Can' believe how fast you forget things, let me refresh your memory:

Quote
@cikljamas, what's with your 19th century obsession?

Let me show you one picture from 19th century:



Accompanying video: #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Flat Earth/Terra Plana

It is interesting how round earthers always evade concrete challenges by use of ridiculous "19th century "argument"" , but right after usage of that idiotic "argument" they aint got any problems with bringing forth "Eratostens" or "Pitagora" or any other 2 500 years old "argument".... i mean, i mean, i mean...#t=2m54s...." class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=2m54s....

Now, when are you going to answer to these irrefutable arguments:

If the Earth is round then you should be able to plausibly explain this:

1: Lighthouses: http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html

2: Experiments on lake Michigan: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

3: Exact formula for counting visibility range for two heights and striking examples which render validity of FET beyond dispute: http://www.energeticforum.com/258148-post188.html

4: At sea the datum line is always a horizontal line - spherical trigonometry is never used - That all triangulation used at sea is PLANE, PROVES THAT THE SEA IS A PLANE : http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html

5: Railways: In 1862, the Houses of Lords and Commons issued an Order that all Railways were to be constructed on a Datum Horizontal line without allowing one inch for curvature.

6: Canals:

Example A: " The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening the Gates of the Baltic and North Sea Canal, in the spring of 1891. The canal starts at Hollenau, on the south side of Kiel Hay, and Joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth, It is 61 miles long, 200 feet wide at the surface and 85 feet at bottom, the depth being 28 feet. No locks are required, as the surface of the two seas is level."

Example B: Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for "curvature" ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company, — (Earth Review, October, 1893), " It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal, and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth." — Manchester Ship Canal Co., Engineer's Office, 19th February, 1892!

Example C:
A surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, writes to the Earth Review for January, 1896, as follows :

" In leveling, I work from Ordnance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level I work sometimes from what is known as the Wolverhampton level, this is said to be 473.19 feet above sea level ; sometimes I work from the Birmingham level, this is said to be 453.04 feet above sea level. Sometimes I work from the Walsal level, this is said to be 407.89 feet above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that, though each extends several miles, each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end ; not the least allowance being made for curvature, although if the earth were a globe, 112 feet ought to be allowed... One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life."

7: London to Moscow proof : In " Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 513, the following occurs:

"In North America, the basin or drainage of the Mississippi is estimated at 1.300.000 square miles, and that of the St. Lawrened at 600,000; while northward of the 50th parallel, extends an inhospitable FLAT of perhaps greater dimensions. . . . Next in order of importance is that section of Europe extending from the German Sea, through Prussia. Poland, and Russia, towards the Ural Mountains, presenting indifferently tracts of heath, sand and open pasture, and regarded by geographers as ONE VAST PLANE. So flat is the general profile of the region, that It has been remarked, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DRAW A LINE FROM LONDON TO MOSCOW, WHICH WOULD NOT PERCEPTIBLY VARY FROM A DEAD LEVEL."

The foregoing is a London-to-Moscow proof that the surface of the world is not globular.

8: Extraordinary flatness of the Earth's crust: These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is a level surface, and that, therefore, the world is not a globe. And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same unformity of evidence against the popular view. In " Nature and Man," by Professor W. B. Carpenter, article " The Deep Sea and its Contents," pages 320 and 321, the writer says :

"Nothing seems to have struck the "Challenger" surveyors more than the extraordinary FLATNESS (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the FLOOR OF THE GREAT OCEANIC AREA. . . . If the bottom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would Jind himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded bj- an elevated and deeply -sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."

9: RIVERS:
From the "Atlas of Physical Geography," by the Rev. T.Milner, M.A., I extract the following:

" Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles."

"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."

"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"

NOT THAT YOU CANNOT PLAUSIBLY EXPLAIN ABOVE FET UNDENIABLE PROOFS, YOU CANNOT EVEN START TO ARGUE AGAINST THE OBVIOUSNESS OF ABOVE ARGUMENTS!!!

One additional undeniable proof no. 10: EYES LEVELED HORIZON NO MATTER HOW HIGH YOU LIFT YOUR 'EYES' UP!!!

So, there is no doubt about the general shape of the surface of the Earth, the question is: How to resolve "Equator" problem, KNOWING VERY WELL that the surface of the Earth is Flat???

Be of some use after so long time (spent on this forum)!

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #104 on: October 21, 2014, 07:35:17 AM »

If the Earth is round then you should be able to plausibly explain this:

1: Lighthouses: http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html

The elevation of the Italian coast in the closest area to the light house you mention is in the 45m-92m range.  Couple that with the 90m-100m height of the lighthouse and refraction, and 70 miles does not sound too improbable.  Also, one should not believe every story from an old navigator.  They often have syphilis.

Quote
2: Experiments on lake Michigan: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

Your own source shows that when the observers lowered their elevation the ships disappeared.  It sounds like another case of refraction not being accounted for.

Quote
3: Exact formula for counting visibility range for two heights and striking examples which render validity of FET beyond dispute: http://www.energeticforum.com/258148-post188.html

Probably refraction again.

Quote
4: At sea the datum line is always a horizontal line - spherical trigonometry is never used - That all triangulation used at sea is PLANE, PROVES THAT THE SEA IS A PLANE : http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html

Datum lines use mean height above sea level, which is curved, but can be normalized to appear as a straight line.

Quote
5: Railways: In 1862, the Houses of Lords and Commons issued an Order that all Railways were to be constructed on a Datum Horizontal line without allowing one inch for curvature.

Railroads frequently exhibit much more flexibility that that required by the curvature of the Earth.  Why should a special allowance be needed?

Quote
6: Canals:

Example A: " The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening the Gates of the Baltic and North Sea Canal, in the spring of 1891. The canal starts at Hollenau, on the south side of Kiel Hay, and Joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth, It is 61 miles long, 200 feet wide at the surface and 85 feet at bottom, the depth being 28 feet. No locks are required, as the surface of the two seas is level."

Example B: Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for "curvature" ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company, — (Earth Review, October, 1893), " It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal, and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth." — Manchester Ship Canal Co., Engineer's Office, 19th February, 1892!

Example C:
A surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, writes to the Earth Review for January, 1896, as follows :

" In leveling, I work from Ordnance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level I work sometimes from what is known as the Wolverhampton level, this is said to be 473.19 feet above sea level ; sometimes I work from the Birmingham level, this is said to be 453.04 feet above sea level. Sometimes I work from the Walsal level, this is said to be 407.89 feet above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that, though each extends several miles, each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end ; not the least allowance being made for curvature, although if the earth were a globe, 112 feet ought to be allowed... One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life."

7: London to Moscow proof : In " Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 513, the following occurs:

"In North America, the basin or drainage of the Mississippi is estimated at 1.300.000 square miles, and that of the St. Lawrened at 600,000; while northward of the 50th parallel, extends an inhospitable FLAT of perhaps greater dimensions. . . . Next in order of importance is that section of Europe extending from the German Sea, through Prussia. Poland, and Russia, towards the Ural Mountains, presenting indifferently tracts of heath, sand and open pasture, and regarded by geographers as ONE VAST PLANE. So flat is the general profile of the region, that It has been remarked, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DRAW A LINE FROM LONDON TO MOSCOW, WHICH WOULD NOT PERCEPTIBLY VARY FROM A DEAD LEVEL."

The foregoing is a London-to-Moscow proof that the surface of the world is not globular.

Please note the word "perceptibly".  Important when considering cute anecdotes.  Nowhere does it say in fact that it is dead level.

Quote
8: Extraordinary flatness of the Earth's crust: These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is a level surface, and that, therefore, the world is not a globe. And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same unformity of evidence against the popular view. In " Nature and Man," by Professor W. B. Carpenter, article " The Deep Sea and its Contents," pages 320 and 321, the writer says :

"Nothing seems to have struck the "Challenger" surveyors more than the extraordinary FLATNESS (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the FLOOR OF THE GREAT OCEANIC AREA. . . . If the bottom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would Jind himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded bj- an elevated and deeply -sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."

Interesting observation, but considering the ocean floor was almost completely unmapped topographically at that timeI am not sure how seriously we should take this.

Quote
9: RIVERS:
From the "Atlas of Physical Geography," by the Rev. T.Milner, M.A., I extract the following:

" Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles." 

"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."

"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"

NOT THAT YOU CANNOT PLAUSIBLY EXPLAIN ABOVE FET UNDENIABLE PROOFS, YOU CANNOT EVEN START TO ARGUE AGAINST THE OBVIOUSNESS OF ABOVE ARGUMENTS!!!

Why can't this phenomenon exist on RE?  Not all portions of the Earth slope like the circumference of a sphere.

Quote
One additional undeniable proof no. 10: EYES LEVELED HORIZON NO MATTER HOW HIGH YOU LIFT YOUR 'EYES' UP!!!

If the Earth were flat, the horizon would be higher than is observed.

Quote
So, there is no doubt about the general shape of the surface of the Earth, the question is: How to resolve "Equator" problem, KNOWING VERY WELL that the surface of the Earth is Flat???

Be of some use after so long time (spent on this forum)!

Cough.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #105 on: October 21, 2014, 08:13:42 AM »
Datum lines use mean height above sea level, which is curved, but can be normalized to appear as a straight line.

Define sea LEVEL!!!

If the Earth were flat, the horizon would be higher than is observed.

Prove it.

A horizon observations (eye leveled-from the edge of space) as we know it, are due to the fact that the Earth is flat, otherwise a curvature of the sphere would be very noticeably observable, let alone that we would notice curvature of the Earth (if the Earth were a sphere) even from the sea level. Even from the sea level we would notice curved horizon (horizon line that stretches from left to right wouldn't be flat but curved). Both (left and right) ends of that line would be inclined (no matter how slightly) downwards, and when you climbed up to the mountains (especially to the HIGHest mountains) these inclinations (at both ends of that horizontal-horizon line) would be of course much more noticeable. If the Earth were a sphere a horizon horizontal line wouldn't be horizontal any more, so i wonder if  we would (in that case) still call that horizontal line "a horizon"???
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #106 on: October 21, 2014, 08:22:08 AM »
Datum lines use mean height above sea level, which is curved, but can be normalized to appear as a straight line.

Define sea LEVEL!!!

Google not working for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

Quote
If the Earth were flat, the horizon would be higher than is observed.

Prove it.

A horizon observations (eye leveled-from the edge of space) as we know it, are due to the fact that the Earth is flat, otherwise a curvature of the sphere would be very noticeably observable, let alone that we would notice curvature of the Earth (if the Earth were a sphere) even from the sea level. Even from the sea level we would notice curved horizon (horizon line that stretches from left to right wouldn't be flat but curved). Both (left and right) ends of that line would be inclined (no matter how slightly) downwards, and when you climbed up to the mountains (especially to the HIGHest mountains) these inclinations (at both ends of that horizontal-horizon line) would be of course much more noticeable. If the Earth were a sphere a horizon horizontal line wouldn't be horizontal any more, so i wonder if  we would (in that case) still call that horizontal line "a horizon"???
[/quote]

No, you prove it.

Anyway:

http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/08/q-if-earth-was-flat-would-there-be-the-horizon-if-so-what-would-it-look-like-if-the-earth-was-flat-and-had-infinite-area-would-that-change-the-answer/
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #107 on: October 21, 2014, 09:52:50 AM »
This shotgun copy-pasta style of debate will get us nowhere.

I'm intrigued by this one, however

Quote
5: Railways: In 1862, the Houses of Lords and Commons issued an Order that all Railways were to be constructed on a Datum Horizontal line without allowing one inch for curvature.
Have you an actual link to the "order"?  Or is this something you just keep copy-pastering without actually finding a source?


Do you realise that surveyors use calculations that account for the curvature of the earth, every single day?  They only use these corrections, as they work.  If the earth isn't round, then why do they work?

They generally use this to correct for curvature and refraction:

Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #108 on: October 21, 2014, 10:34:28 AM »
@cikljamas, what's with your 19th century obsession?

My guess?  He (and a lot of his peers) quote "science" that's 150 years out of date because it's the only science that supports their flat earth proposition.  Any science from the second half of the 20th century proves unequivocally that the planet is an oblate spheroid.

During the historical period that cikljamas seems enthralled with, there were numerous other loony tunes notions out there as well...

Iridology;  each part of the eye's iris is connected to specific bodily organ.
Spiritualism;   séances, spirit photography, mediums, ectoplasm.
Phrenology;  determining a person's character by feeling the bumps on their scalp.  [see image below]
Homeopathy and Isopathy;  like cures like.
Atlantis;  an ancient lost continent of advanced intellectuals.
Martian Canals;  proof of intelligent life on the planet.
Mesmerism;  an invisible natural force exerted by animals.
Anthropometry;   classifying potential criminals by facial characteristics.
Ear Candling;  used to cleanse and harmonise a person’s energy fields or auras.

All of these were considered as legitimate scientific notions in the mid-nineteenth century.  At the same time Mr Samuel Birley Rowbotham was writing about his flat earth proposition.  What an interesting (but unsurprising) coincidence.





Popular in the middle of the 19th century, phrenology held that
mental faculties are localised to different parts of the brain, that
they develop differently in different individuals, and that these
differences are reflected in measurable differences in the
external form of the cranium.






*

sokarul

  • 17785
  • Discount Chemist
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #109 on: October 21, 2014, 02:53:58 PM »
cikljamas, you need to realize on round surface with a curved gravitation field would act the same as a flat surface. I don't think you posted anything that isn't possible on a round earth. You also need to look up what canals actually are.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #110 on: October 22, 2014, 03:57:45 AM »
cikljamas, you need to realize on round surface with a curved gravitation field would act the same as a flat surface. I don't think you posted anything that isn't possible on a round earth. You also need to look up what canals actually are.

It is very obvious, that if the Earth were experiencing a daily rotation; the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal). The science of aerodynamic is clear in this issue; an air flow (dynamic) should be generated from the region of M = 1.33 to the region of M = 0; from the region of high density (at the equator) to the region of low density (at the poles). Such air flow and such air pressure regimes do not exist. The localities of these regimes would terminate the life of all species on Earth. The fact that, the static sea level pressure is equal to one atmosphere (= 1013.25 mbar (millibar) = 0.101325 x 106 Pascal) at standard conditions concludes the absence of rotating Earth. You can confirm this fact by applying the Pitot static-tube along the Earth’s latitudes. In a non windy day, the Pitot static-tube must indicate a total pressure of 1.0 atm which is equal to the static pressure; otherwise, it must be calibrated. This verifies that the speed of the air flow has no other component than the thermal static speed. If you hold the Pitot static tube so that the portion-B faces the air flow and the portion-A faces the air loft; the tube will read 1.0 atm in a standard day, in all directions. It is true and fact. Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html

Now you should consider these assertions as a proven facts:

1. There is no Earth's revolution around anything!
2. There is no Earth's rotation on it's axis!
3. There is no axial tilt of the Earth!
4. Whole universe is centred to the Earth! (Celestial equator is aligned with the Earth's equator)
5. There is no gravitation as such. Newton invented it with one and only purpose (to prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun)


Now, we should consider the shape of the Earth:

What is gravity, what is the mechanics behind it? Nobody knows, and nobody will ever find out, because there is no such thing as gravity. See this: http://www.universetoday.com/74015/what-causes-gravity/

Let say that the best description of the "gravity" has been found in these words:

Take the Earth, for instance. Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether to keep all of its elementary particles spinning. We are just in the way of this influx. This view explains what gravity is, and also explains Tesla’s seemingly odd statement that the sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep its integrity.

Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light, a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time. This influx is what gravity is. As ether is absorbed two things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin, and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy, is transformed into electromagnetic energy. That is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism. Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/253761-post225.html


If there is no gravitation as such, there must be something else that keeps us from floating off into space. What is that? Let's call it pressure instead of "Ether influx"...

Now, if the Earth were a globe, there should be two different pressures in action on the same spot (on the surface of the Earth), 1: one which would keep us from floatting off into space (this kind of pressure shouldn't be too strong, otherwise we would be squashed instantly), and 2: one which would keep oceans from being spilled out into space (this kind of pressure should be much, much, much stronger, otherwise oceans would be spilled out into space)!

Now, someone should be able to explain parallel existence of these two completely different pressures on the same spot (on the surface of the ROUND Earth)!

Now, read this:

Quote
The latitude that corresponds to the Mach number M =1 is 45 degree north and south. The third principal region is designated for the subsonic and incompressible flow, M = 0.3. Consider the mean temperature of the air to be 10 degree C (= 283 degree K). (The mean temperature drops from the equatorial value as you move toward north and south poles.) In this case, the speed of sound is equal to 336 m/s, since V = 0.3 a, hence the spinning speed is equal to 100.8 m/s (363 km/hr). The latitude that corresponds to the Mach number M = 0.3 is 77 degree north and south.

Now, try to figure out "the mystery" of a blue region on the next picture:

« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 06:52:41 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #111 on: October 22, 2014, 06:14:57 AM »
Quote
the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity
It's called wind - look it up.

as to the rest: tldr
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #112 on: October 22, 2014, 08:10:09 AM »
Datum lines use mean height above sea level, which is curved, but can be normalized to appear as a straight line.

Define sea LEVEL!!!

Google not working for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

Is the sea the same level all over the world ? What do you think? If you don't know i will tell you, don't worry! In fact i can tell right now! The answer is "Yes, it is!"...Now, let's see some interesting excerpts from Rowbotham's "Earth not a globe":

FACT 12. The earth has a tremulous motion more or less at all times.

PROOF. If a delicate spirit-level be firmly fixed on a rock or on the most solid foundation it is possible to construct, and far away from the influence of any railway, or blasting or mining operations, the curious phenomenon will be observed of continual but irregular change in the position of the air bubble. However carefully the level may be adjusted, and the instrument protected from the atmosphere, the "bubble" will not maintain its position long together.

A similar effect is noticed in the most favourably situated astronomical observatories, where instruments of the very best construction, and placed in the most approved positions, cannot always be relied upon. without occasional and systematic readjustment.

The following quotation affords a good illustration of the tremour above described:---

"MARCH 12TH, 1822, in Adventure Bay, Island of South Georgia, we anchored in seven fathoms water, latitude 54° 2´ 48″ S., longitude 38° 8´ 4″ W. The head of this Bay being surrounded with mountains, I ascended the top of one of them for the purpose of taking the altitude of the sun when at some distance from the meridian; but after planting my artificial horizon, I was surprised to find that although there was not a breath of wind, and everything around perfectly still, yet the mercury had so tremulous a motion that I could not get an observation."


FACT 13. Tides in the extreme south are very small, and in some parts are scarcely perceptible.

PROOF. "The rise and fall of tide in Christmas Harbour, latitude 48° 41´ S, longitude 69° 3´ 35″ E., is remarkably small; not on any occasion amounting to more than 30 inches and the usual spring tides are generally less than two feet. The neap tide varies from four to twelve inches, and the diurnal inequality is, comparatively, very considerable."

FACT 16.--If, at any hour of the night, a telescope is firmly fixed, securely lashed to any solid object, and turned to the pole-star, it will be found on continuing the observation for some hours that the star "Polaris" does not maintain its position, but seems to slowly rise and fall in the field of view of the telescope. The line-of-sight will be sometimes above it; in about twelve hours it will be below it; and in another twelve hours it will again be above the star.

Many more facts could be added to the foregoing collection, but already the number is sufficient to enable us to form a definite conclusion as to what is the real cause of the tides.

The facts 1 to 7 fully enable us to establish syllogistically the groundwork of the reply. All bodies floating in an incompressible medium, and exposed to atmospheric pressure, fluctuate, or rise and fall in that medium.

The earth is a vast irregular structure, stretched out upon and standing or floating in the incompressible waters of the "great deep."

Ergo--The earth has, of necessity, a motion of fluctuation.

Hence, when by the pressure of the atmosphere, the earth is depressed or forced slowly down into the "great deep," the waters immediately close in upon the receding bays and headlands, and produce the flood tide; and when, by reaction, the earth slowly ascends, the waters recede, and the result is the ebb tide. Read more: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

Now, since the sea level is the same all over the world how come that tides in the extreme south are very small, and in some parts scarcely perceptible? How does this agree with the idea of supposedly globular Earth? Why is the air pressure lesser in extreme south? See the map in my previous post above! What would be the consequences of these irregularities on a globular Earth?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #113 on: October 22, 2014, 08:35:30 AM »
What does sea level have to do with the strength of tides?  From the maps I looked at, tides are stronger towards the eliptic of the Earth's orbit, and less so near the poles.  Seems to be exactly what you would expect with the current model.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #114 on: October 22, 2014, 08:54:46 AM »
Now, if the Earth were a globe, there should be two different pressures in action on the same spot (on the surface of the Earth), 1: one which would keep us from floatting off into space (this kind of pressure shouldn't be too strong, otherwise we would be squashed instantly), and 2: one which would keep oceans from being spilled out into space (this kind of pressure should be much, much, much stronger, otherwise oceans would be spilled out into space)!

Now, someone should be able to explain parallel existence of these two completely different pressures on the same spot (on the surface of the ROUND Earth)!
Yet another subject in which FE'rs always seem to struggle.  What is your mass compared to that of the oceans?

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #115 on: October 22, 2014, 01:50:11 PM »
FACT 16.--If, at any hour of the night, a telescope is firmly fixed, securely lashed to any solid object, and turned to the pole-star, it will be found on continuing the observation for some hours that the star "Polaris" does not maintain its position, but seems to slowly rise and fall in the field of view of the telescope. The line-of-sight will be sometimes above it; in about twelve hours it will be below it; and in another twelve hours it will again be above the star.

This one is easy. Polaris isn't located exactly at the pole, so this is exactly what you would expect to see. It's currently about 3/4 degree from the true celestial pole and getting closer; in 1900 it was more than a degree from the pole, and in 1822, almost two degrees.

What is the source of these numbered "Facts"? Are the rest like these - either incorrect, or obvious and not inconsistent with current models?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #116 on: October 22, 2014, 03:08:29 PM »
@Alpha2Omega, here we go:

Quote
Here is another nut for "Tamatea" to crack, and when he has cracked this I can give him some more: -On the last trip of the R.M.S. Kaikoura, Captain W. C. Crutchley R.N.R. sighted Mount Peel at a distance of 118 miles. Take off for elevation of observer 7 miles, which leaves 111 miles; the curvature in that distance according to science, is 8,214 feet; take the height of Mount Peel 5,500 feet from this, and it leaves 2,714 feet. The top of Mount Peel should have been below the horizon, and could not be seen at the distance named, if the world were a globe.-

Getting back to this, I find that the top of Mt. Peel at 5,500 ft. should be geometrically about 1/4 degree below the horizon from a distance of 111 miles.

There are several possibilities that explain this report:

1) It's due to ordinary atmospheric refraction, and no big deal.

2) It's an unusually large amount of refraction (thus it's a news item).

3) Distance and/or height are wrong.

4) The whole report is completely bogus.

Do you disbelieve everything you read in newspapers except this?

Without actually running the numbers, I lean toward 2). Even if this is somewhat more refraction than you'd expect under normal conditions (I'm not sure if it is or not), it hardly seems excessive; light from objects outside the atmosphere normally has been refracted twice that amount when it appears to be on the horizon, and most of that occurs in the lower parts of the atmosphere where the air is densest. The exact amount of refraction for two points within the atmosphere is difficult to calculate, even knowing the exact density profile of the air (which we never do). Approximations using standard models for the atmosphere are possible, but sometimes local conditions will make the real value less or more than 'normal'.

This begs the larger question whether this has ever been observed since? If true, but only seen once or very rarely, I fail to see how this could be anything other than unusual atmospheric conditions. If it's common, then it's less unusual or even normal atmospheric conditions.

If unusual, I also fail to see how this particularly supports a flat-earth model. What I've seen here requires "bendy light" (not refracted like the above, but bent upward by some unknown mechanism) that mimics the sharp horizon inherent in the spherical-earth model. If this is "impossible" with a spherical earth, then why is it more plausible in a model that requires bent light; what caused the temporary local aberration?

Since you responded to the last paragraph in the earlier reply and none of the others, I presume you are satisfied with the explanations given. I'll take a look at the links you replied with later.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sokarul

  • 17785
  • Discount Chemist
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #117 on: October 22, 2014, 04:45:44 PM »


It is very obvious, that if the Earth were experiencing a daily rotation; the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal).
Why? The atmosphere moves with the earth, no need for it to be variable.

Quote
The science of aerodynamic is clear in this issue; an air flow (dynamic) should be generated from the region of M = 1.33 to the region of M = 0; from the region of high density (at the equator) to the region of low density (at the poles).
You are missing units on those numbers. But anyways, yes there are areas of high and low pressure. Watch the weather channel.

Quote
Such air flow and such air pressure regimes do not exist.
They do exist,watch the weather channel to find them.

Quote
The localities of these regimes would terminate the life of all species on Earth. The fact that, the static sea level pressure is equal to one atmosphere (= 1013.25 mbar (millibar) = 0.101325 x 106 Pascal) at standard conditions concludes the absence of rotating Earth.

Pressure would never be zero. so no, life wouldn't die.

Quote
You can confirm this fact by applying the Pitot static-tube along the Earth’s latitudes. In a non windy day, the Pitot static-tube must indicate a total pressure of 1.0 atm which is equal to the static pressure; otherwise, it must be calibrated. This verifies that the speed of the air flow has no other component than the thermal static speed. If you hold the Pitot static tube so that the portion-B faces the air flow and the portion-A faces the air loft; the tube will read 1.0 atm in a standard day, in all directions. It is true and fact. Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html
I don't know what they are but it would be hard for them to read one atm here at 5,280 feet. So no, an instrument on a plane does not prove the earth is flat,

Quote
Now you should consider these assertions as a proven facts:

1. There is no Earth's revolution around anything!
That is not what astronomy says.
Quote
2. There is no Earth's rotation on it's axis!
Foucault pendulums, still.

Quote
3. There is no axial tilt of the Earth!
Seasons.

Quote
4. Whole universe is centred to the Earth! (Celestial equator is aligned with the Earth's equator)
Astronomy again.

Quote
5. There is no gravitation as such. Newton invented it with one and only purpose (to prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun)
Or to explain falling objects. Today we know he was not 100% correct.

Quote
Now, we should consider the shape of the Earth:

What is gravity, what is the mechanics behind it? Nobody knows, and nobody will ever find out, because there is no such thing as gravity. See this: http://www.universetoday.com/74015/what-causes-gravity/

I don't have to read those to know that mass, energy, and momentum cause gravitation.

Quote
Let say that the best description of the "gravity" has been found in these words:

Take the Earth, for instance. Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether to keep all of its elementary particles spinning. We are just in the way of this influx. This view explains what gravity is, and also explains Tesla’s seemingly odd statement that the sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep its integrity.
Any type of ether or aether has never been found or detected. Why does gravity not drop off in mines as the mass above would be absorbing the ether so there would be less underground?
Quote
Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light, a new paradigm is born.
Electrons do no spin at faster than the speed of light. We know the mass of electrons, therefore they cannot have a velocity faster than the speed of light.

Quote
The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time.
This influx is what gravity is. As ether is absorbed two things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin,
They don't need anything to keep their spin. Your idea would allow their spin to be any number rather than a quantized number.

Quote
and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy, is transformed into electromagnetic energy. That is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism. Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/253761-post225.html

We can detect electromagnetic energies. What you described is not detected anywhere. Your ether is not delectable but everything absorbs it?

Quote
If there is no gravitation as such, there must be something else that keeps us from floating off into space. What is that? Let's call it pressure instead of "Ether influx"...

Now, if the Earth were a globe, there should be two different pressures in action on the same spot (on the surface of the Earth), 1: one which would keep us from floatting off into space (this kind of pressure shouldn't be too strong, otherwise we would be squashed instantly), and 2: one which would keep oceans from being spilled out into space (this kind of pressure should be much, much, much stronger, otherwise oceans would be spilled out into space)!

Gravitation and your "ether flux" should be able to have one pressure hold both down.

Quote
Now, read this:

Quote
The latitude that corresponds to the Mach number M =1 is 45 degree north and south. The third principal region is designated for the subsonic and incompressible flow, M = 0.3. Consider the mean temperature of the air to be 10 degree C (= 283 degree K). (The mean temperature drops from the equatorial value as you move toward north and south poles.) In this case, the speed of sound is equal to 336 m/s, since V = 0.3 a, hence the spinning speed is equal to 100.8 m/s (363 km/hr). The latitude that corresponds to the Mach number M = 0.3 is 77 degree north and south.
Mach as in speed of sound? Speed of sound changes from air density. You arn't making sence sine you aren't defining your terms.
Quote
Now, try to figure out "the mystery" of a blue region on the next picture:


Small picture with the label unreadable. What am I looking at?

Now let me ask you a question, what is the difference between gold and silver?
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 04:49:37 PM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #118 on: October 22, 2014, 10:05:29 PM »

Now let me ask you a question, what is the difference between gold and silver?
Well, currently it is about 1200 dollars an ounce... Not sure what that has to do with blue regions on a map though ;D

?

guv

  • 1132
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #119 on: October 22, 2014, 10:38:28 PM »
Difference between gold and silver 32 protons.