Gravity, according to an FEer

I don't contest any of that data. As a matter of fact, I've seen that table before. Do you have anything else to show me?

Read the words from left to right. Starting at the top left.

It shows that the measured value of gravitation varies, contradicting your assertion that the measured value g = 9.8 m s-2 is valid everywhere on the surface of the Earth.

Read the words from left to right. Starting at the top left.

It shows that the measured value of gravitation varies, contradicting your assertion that the measured value g = 9.8 m s-2 is valid everywhere on the surface of the Earth.

I see no contradiction.

Quote from: bennjerry on April 12, 2009, 04:51:37 PM

Read the words from left to right. Starting at the top left.

It shows that the measured value of gravitation varies, contradicting your assertion that the measured value g = 9.8 m s-2 is valid everywhere on the surface of the Earth.

I see no contradiction.

Between one statement claiming the value measured is constant everywhere, and evidence indicating otherwise?

Between one statement claiming the value measured is constant everywhere, and evidence indicating otherwise?

Yes.

Quote from: bennjerry on April 12, 2009, 05:07:47 PM

Between one statement claiming the value measured is constant everywhere, and evidence indicating otherwise?

Yes.

Then there's no hope for you.

Then there's no hope for you.

What are the accuracies involved in the measurements in each case?

That is why I advised all of you to read carefully the links I provided...where it is proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no such thing as AN ATTRACTIVE KIND OF GRAVITATION...

Let us investigate carefully the anomalies of the gravitational "pull":

Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance.?The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much. (G. B. Airy.() Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.



The variations of the barometric pressure are due to a pressure kind of gravitation, NOT an attractive gravitation:

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.
It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beals discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth's surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.



Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition. His work was not taken seriously by the scientific community, and the very precise spark photography technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used by other investigators. Experiments by Victor Cremieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth?s surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory.

Unexpected anomalies continue to turn up. Mikhail Gersteyn has shown that G varies by at least 0.054% depending on orientation of the two test masses relative to the fixed stars. Gary Vezzoli has found that the strength of gravitational interactions varies by 0.04 to 0.05% as a function of an object's temperature, shape, and phase. Donald Kelly has demonstrated that if the absorption capacity of a body is reduced by magnetizing or electrically energizing it, it is attracted to the earth at a rate less than g. Physicists normally measure g in a controlled manner which includes not altering the absorption capacity of bodies from their usual state. A team of Japanese scientists has found that a right-spinning gyroscope falls slightly faster than when it is not spinning. Bruce DePalma discovered that rotating objects falling in a magnetic field accelerate faster than g.

As mentioned above, measurements of gravity below the earth's surface are consistently higher than predicted on the basis of Newto's theory. Sceptics simply assume that hidden rocks of unusually high density must be present. However, measurements in mines where densities are very well known have given the same anomalous results, as have measurements to a depth of 1673 metres in a homogenous ice sheet in Greenland, well above the underlying rock.

On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.

And, finally, here is Newton himself telling us that he believed in nothing but a pressure type of gravitation:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

And now, Newton's explanation for the cause of the orbits of the planets/stars:

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

A letter to Bentley: That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.

Levee,

cut that crap out. Why are you trying to bring these people into a physics debate? Find a few university websites where you can ask some people a question, ask them a hypothetical question of why fact X would not fit a flat earth, watch them laugh their heads off, and give you a really good explanation that wont be explained by any FE here. Done.

Spend more time on Wikipedia, read facts that drive everyday RE physics.

All you will get here is fiction masked as facts. I know someone that went to Antartica. You know what they will say? "the conspiracy". You can only pull something out of your ass before it really stinks.

Before you start on something as complex as gravity, try doing the math for a flat sun 32 miles across, orbiting for no decent physics reason at all. Once you discover its fiction, go to a real website.

That is why I advised all of you to read carefully the links I provided...where it is proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no such thing as AN ATTRACTIVE KIND OF GRAVITATION...

Let us investigate carefully the anomalies of the gravitational "pull":

Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance.?The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much. (G. B. Airy.() Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.



The variations of the barometric pressure are due to a pressure kind of gravitation, NOT an attractive gravitation:

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.
It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beals discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth's surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.



Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition. His work was not taken seriously by the scientific community, and the very precise spark photography technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used by other investigators. Experiments by Victor Cremieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth?s surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory.

Unexpected anomalies continue to turn up. Mikhail Gersteyn has shown that G varies by at least 0.054% depending on orientation of the two test masses relative to the fixed stars. Gary Vezzoli has found that the strength of gravitational interactions varies by 0.04 to 0.05% as a function of an object's temperature, shape, and phase. Donald Kelly has demonstrated that if the absorption capacity of a body is reduced by magnetizing or electrically energizing it, it is attracted to the earth at a rate less than g. Physicists normally measure g in a controlled manner which includes not altering the absorption capacity of bodies from their usual state. A team of Japanese scientists has found that a right-spinning gyroscope falls slightly faster than when it is not spinning. Bruce DePalma discovered that rotating objects falling in a magnetic field accelerate faster than g.

As mentioned above, measurements of gravity below the earth's surface are consistently higher than predicted on the basis of Newto's theory. Sceptics simply assume that hidden rocks of unusually high density must be present. However, measurements in mines where densities are very well known have given the same anomalous results, as have measurements to a depth of 1673 metres in a homogenous ice sheet in Greenland, well above the underlying rock.

On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.

And, finally, here is Newton himself telling us that he believed in nothing but a pressure type of gravitation:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

And now, Newton's explanation for the cause of the orbits of the planets/stars:

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

A letter to Bentley: That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.

tl;dr

Also, Punisher alt.

The variations are caused by the stars slight gravitational pull.

am I supposed to believe that mass magically attracts other objects for no real reason?

I find a conspiracy more believable than that.

so the answer to your question, plain and simple would be this:
no object exerts gravity.

am I supposed to believe that mass magically attracts other objects for no real reason?

I find a conspiracy more believable than that.

so the answer to your question, plain and simple would be this:
no object exerts gravity.

Like I said in the previous topic, we have mathematical ways to prove that masses attract one another.  Just because we don't have a reason why yet, doesn't mean it's not true. 

When you're a small child and you burn your hand on the stove, you know it's hot, maybe you're not sure why, but just because you don't know why doesn't change the fact that the stove is hot.

You don't need an answer for every corresponding question that may come up with the answer given, but you at least need some backing to those initial answers.

Knowing that masses attract one another is just one step closer than what we were to finding out all the answers surrounding gravity prior to that finding.

Robosteve, there is no such thing as tl/dr when it comes to serious research...if you want to be informed, be prepared to spend some time lecturing the topics reviewed here...

taurondir, it seems that nobody would be able to unglue your lips (not even with a crowbar) from Newton's boots, or Einstein's dirty tennis shoes...you are actually inviting me to wikipedia?

Antarctica, the island known since antiquity, is a place you know extremely little about, believe me...

You accept much too easily what is presented in front of you...

You have not read my message it seems...I have gone to great pains explaining that the 32 mile sun model is completely wrong...

If you want the best facts concerning heliocosmology here is the place to start:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=8a6c937c945f6a1cbbb560d2da0b69bd&topic=553.0

You might also check Moon Paradox:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=8a6c937c945f6a1cbbb560d2da0b69bd&topic=709.0

There is no such thing as an attractive type of gravitation, the complete proof:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=8a6c937c945f6a1cbbb560d2da0b69bd&topic=536.0
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=8a6c937c945f6a1cbbb560d2da0b69bd&topic=552.0

Nowhere in the Principia does Newton mention attractive gravitation...for all of you who are assuming this thing...

On the contrary...he believed in pressure gravity, from the very beginning:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

As for the flat earth theory, I have spoken with many PhD's on various forums; when they see that I know more than they have ever dreamed of concerning cosmology, astrophysics and the like, when I present in front of them the tens and tens of photographs which prove beyond any doubt that there is no curvature at the surface of the earth, they have no choice but to agree with me...

Let me take care of your doubts right now:

Port Credit - Toronto, 14.5 km, 4.5 meters of curvature, ABSOLUTELY NONEXISTENT, no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature, a completely flat surface of the water:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/chapstickaddict/698091630/








Let us go to 33.4 km, Oakville - Toronto:




Let us go to over 55 km, Hamilton - Toronto:

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

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

Where do you get your claim of "4.5 meters of curvature" from?

Here is the correct formula:

Curvature of a spherical Earth...

R = earth radius, 6378.164 kilometers
@ = s/R
s = arclength between the two points measured on the surface
C = curvature

Earth Curvature

C = R(1 - cos{@/2})

For example:

s =  13 km (Strait of Gibraltar), C = 3.31 meters
s =  34 km (English Channel), C = 22.4 meters
s =  53 km (Lake Ontario, Grimsby - Toronto), C = 55 meters
s = 1000 km (Irkutsk - Tungusk), C = 19.5 km

For s = 15 km, C = 4.5 meters, s = 14.5 km, C = 4.1 meters, we can round off to 4 meters...makes no difference...

A still shorter formula for the curvature is: C = (s^2)/8R, for s/R less than 0.1, that is it will hold pretty well for distances under 500-600 km...

How it is derived, here:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=efd6aeabf4aa1bb26789cae549222eb7&topic=555.0

A more complex formula, taking into account the height of the photographer, and the height of the visual target:



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 []

For example, s = AB = 53 km, AE = 2 meters, we get BD = 180 meters, that is, we could see nothing under the altitude of 180 meters, standing on the beach at Grimsby or St. Catharines...

Does that formula take into account Earth is not a perfect sphere (oblate spheroid?)? Earth actually bulges at the equator, making the areas between the poles and the equator flatter than on a true sphere.

The formula for curvature concerning an ellipse will involve elliptic integrals...in order to avoid this unnecessary complication, all formulas in topography and applied geography make use of the formula I gave in my previous message...

Why? Because the effect of going from a spherical earth curvature situation to an elliptical shaped curvature formula is completely unnoticeable, of the order of millimeters or centimeters.

I already stated this fact in the link, where I derived the formula:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=efd6aeabf4aa1bb26789cae549222eb7&topic=555.0

It is much easier, rather than rely on elliptical integrals, to change the radius of the Earth to see the effect upon the formula and upon the curvature.

Let us use instead, a radius of 6300 km, and a 13 km distance.

We will get a curvature of 3.35 meters.

Now, let us make use of a radius of 6400 km, we will get a curvature of 3.30 meters.

Therefore, we can safely use the formula from classical topography, where we get a curvature of 3.31 meters.

As you have seen, the effect of changing the radius to take into account any possible differences, will be of the order of centimeters.

So, you are still left with the fact that there is no curvature, none whatsoever, in these photographs, where we should see at least a midpoint visual obstacle of 4 meters, and an ascending slope to go along.

Let us now go to a distance of 55 km. With a radius of 6378.164 km we get a curvature of 55.1 meters, with a radius of 6300 km we get a curvature of 55.7 meters.

Grimsby - Toronto 53 km, curvature of 55 meters



Now let us go to the Beamer Falls Conservation Area, right next to Grimsby, 45 meters in height:

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

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.

At a distance of 53 km, with a curvature of 55 meters, from the altitude where this photograph was taken, you would have seen, on a round earth the following:

An ascending slope, culminating with the remaining 10 meters portion of the mountain of water which constitutes the midpoint curvature of 55 meters, and NOTHING to see under the height of 65 meters, that is the 65 meter portion of the buildings would not be seen; but, as we can see, there is no ascending slope, no remaining 10 meter portion, the opposing shore can be seen (though the resolution is not as good as in the other photos) from bottom to top.

Beamer Falls: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/343037881_497327a9d6_o.jpg


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

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 the surface of the lake Michigan is completely flat.

The model currently accepted (why, we are still wondering) by FES can be proved to be wrong quite easily, if we just take into account the orbits of the Sun/Moon/Planets, above the flat earth.

That the earth is flat is very easy to show, the supporting theory is what makes the whole thing a joke in the eyes of the round earth proponents; once the correct model is accepted, there is no limit to what could be done...

Let us take as an example the western shoreline of Lake Ontario:

Oh god, not this rubbish again.

Let's save ourselves this debate again: http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=684.30

niceguybutt, you were not able to add one centimeter of curvature...you do not even understand or know, according to your own declaration, the current situation in cosmology...let me refresh your memory...

Here is a short version of the Faint Young Sun Paradox (see, guynicebutt, when you talk to me, you have a chance to learn the best arguments, to gain a much better understanding)...

Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes.

According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.

Evolution proposes that the early atmosphere contained a greater amount of greenhouse gases (such as methane) than today. This would have produced average temperatures close to those today, even with a much fainter Sun. As the Sun gradually increased in luminosity, Earth's atmosphere is supposed to have evolved along with it, so that the amount of greenhouse gases have slowly decreased to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity.

The precise tuning of this alleged co-evolution is nothing short of miraculous. The mechanism driving this would have to be a complex system of negative feedbacks working very gradually, though it is not at all clear how such feedbacks could occur. At any point, a slight positive feedback would have completely disrupted the system, with catastrophic consequences similar to those of Venus or Mars. For instance, the current makeup of Earth's atmosphere is in a non-equilibrium state that is maintained by the widespread diversity of life. There is no evolutionary imperative that this be the case: it is just the way it is. Thus the incredibly unlikely origin and evolution of life had to be accompanied by the evolution of Earth's atmosphere in concert with the Sun.

The implausibility of such a process has caused Lovelock to propose his Gaia hypothesis. According to this, the biosphere (consisting of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, crust, and all living things) constitutes a sort of super organism that has evolved. Life has developed in such a way that the atmosphere has been altered to protect it in the face of increasing solar luminosity. Lovelock's hypothesis has not been generally accepted, largely because of the spiritual implications. Indeed, it does seem to lead to a mystical sort of view.


If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3 C. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences10.html

Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.


As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary, laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction, between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water, has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'

A supersite which shows the errors in radiodating with uranium/iron carbonates made by S. Mojzsis in investigating the faint young sun paradox:

http://documents.scribd.com/docs/ngh6ixb0w80lwvvqkxo.pdf

niceguybutt, you were not able to add one centimeter of curvature...you do not even understand or know, according to your own declaration, the current situation in cosmology...let me refresh your memory...

Here is a short version of the Faint Young Sun Paradox (see, guynicebutt, when you talk to me, you have a chance to learn the best arguments, to gain a much better understanding)...

Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes.

According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.

Evolution proposes that the early atmosphere contained a greater amount of greenhouse gases (such as methane) than today. This would have produced average temperatures close to those today, even with a much fainter Sun. As the Sun gradually increased in luminosity, Earth's atmosphere is supposed to have evolved along with it, so that the amount of greenhouse gases have slowly decreased to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity.

The precise tuning of this alleged co-evolution is nothing short of miraculous. The mechanism driving this would have to be a complex system of negative feedbacks working very gradually, though it is not at all clear how such feedbacks could occur. At any point, a slight positive feedback would have completely disrupted the system, with catastrophic consequences similar to those of Venus or Mars. For instance, the current makeup of Earth's atmosphere is in a non-equilibrium state that is maintained by the widespread diversity of life. There is no evolutionary imperative that this be the case: it is just the way it is. Thus the incredibly unlikely origin and evolution of life had to be accompanied by the evolution of Earth's atmosphere in concert with the Sun.

The implausibility of such a process has caused Lovelock to propose his Gaia hypothesis. According to this, the biosphere (consisting of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, crust, and all living things) constitutes a sort of super organism that has evolved. Life has developed in such a way that the atmosphere has been altered to protect it in the face of increasing solar luminosity. Lovelock's hypothesis has not been generally accepted, largely because of the spiritual implications. Indeed, it does seem to lead to a mystical sort of view.


If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3 C. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences10.html

Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.


As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary, laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction, between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water, has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'

A supersite which shows the errors in radiodating with uranium/iron carbonates made by S. Mojzsis in investigating the faint young sun paradox:

http://documents.scribd.com/docs/ngh6ixb0w80lwvvqkxo.pdf

tl;dr

Seriously, stop posting, Punisher.

11777 to 56...who is punishing who?

FYSP takes care once and for all, in just one message, of all the nonsense posted by RE proponents, re: heliocosmology...it is worth reading...

11777 to 56...who is punishing who?

Nobody is punishing anybody, you just happen to be a Punisher alt.

Quote from: levee on April 21, 2009, 06:39:13 AM

11777 to 56...who is punishing who?

Nobody is punishing anybody, you just happen to be a Punisher alt.

I thought levee raised some good points. Why can't you answer them instead of calling people names?

Specifically referring to the issue of curvature looking towards Toronto: when he posts something apart from unverifiable photographs, unobtainable news stories, compressed-to-buggery videos, or just plain hearsay, then I'll give him a fair hearing. See my previous post for the last time I tried to do so without that, then you'll understand why I'm sceptical this time.

niceguybutt

I stopped reading at that point, having seen all the evidence I needed to to determine the mental agility of the poster.

Quote from: markjo on April 11, 2009, 10:52:26 AM

See, even FE'ers can't agree on which model is correct.   

And I'm sure all REers agree on how many planets are in the solar system, how old the Universe is and what would happen if you fell into a black hole.

1. Eight. And it's semantics, with no bearing on reality.

2. Commonly-accepted to be about 14 billion years. There are a few differing theories but those that damage the integrity of RET are usually young-earth Creationists.

3. Irrelevant.

matrix, let me worry about any mental agility; you will find that my messages are exceptionally documented, they include always the very best information, if you do not like the introduction, just take the time to breath and pay attention to what you are reading in the next paragraph.

physicist, you are accepting too readily any official dates as it pertains to the age of the universe; please read the faint young sun paradox, and to further make you day, the very best information about the absolute falsity of the big bang scenario:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=cb1082c7f53bb4d2cffd0dcb36c5b920&topic=551.0

ncbut, your verbose nonsense does not impress anybody, you got that? My messages about the fact that there is no curvature of the lake Ontario are very well documented, you might access this:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=cb1082c7f53bb4d2cffd0dcb36c5b920&topic=831.0

At every point the photographs are verifiable, posted with the original date and specifications, your cheap excuses show just how biased you are against the truth presented here.

Here for you ngbut, the very best photograph taken in Beamer Falls, 45 meters in height, you were not able to utter one intelligent word to say something to the opposite effect:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg

At a distance of 53 km, with a curvature of 55 meters, from the altitude where this photograph was taken, you would have seen, on a round earth the following:

An ascending slope, culminating with the remaining 10 meters portion of the mountain of water which constitutes the midpoint curvature of 55 meters, and NOTHING to see under the height of 65 meters, that is the 65 meter portion of the buildings would not be seen; but, as we can see, there is no ascending slope, no remaining 10 meter portion, the opposing shore can be seen (though the resolution is not as good as in the other photos) from bottom to top.

Beamer Falls: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/343037881_497327a9d6_o.jpg

There is no curvature over the lake Ontario, not one centimeter...

As to the videos, I have selected ONLY the ones made profesionally, the Islamic History of Europe and The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature, and in the first video, we can see the waves splashing onto the opposing shoreline:


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



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.

More photographs can be found here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=557.0

Now, let us take care of robostench, once and for all...

robostench wrote:

I think you will find that the measured value g = 9.8 m s-2 is valid everywhere on the surface of the Earth.

robosteve, my intervention here was motivated by this statement, made by you, in utter ignorance of the actual facts:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28196.msg672506#msg672506

This shows that you do not know dick about physics, and that your place should be somewhere else; certainly, you haven't any clue or any flying fuck idea of any subject discussed here.

You mentioned the Punisher; were you delirious to even suggest that my messages are related in any way, shape or form to his messages? Punisher might have had something going there, maybe in his mind, but he did not offer any details specifying the entire theory he was trying to present, that is why his interventions were classified as a practical joke.

Do you see any such things in my messages, robosteve? And if not, why the dumbfuck comparison?

How much would it be enough for you to sigh with relief, and give up the tl;dr posting? A SINGLE PARAGRAPH OF INFORMATION? Have you ever done any research on any subject? If you did, then you would know that sometimes it takes tens if not hundreds of pages to cover a subject.

Please have a tomography done on your amoeba brains, and then encircle the only functional neuron there (running on a standby mode).

As for any comparisons, other than crying for "I miss Dogplatter", you might read what he had to say about me:

I strongly recommend that forum user Sandokhan be furnished with the capacity to view this board and contribute to it, probably by promotion to global moderator.

My reasons are roughly as follows: in my estimation, the unprecedented volume and quality of zetetic scholarship which Sandokhan has produced, and continues to produce, far exceeds that of essentially any other contributor to this site (and certainly on .ORG!), distinguishing him as possibly the most eminent zetetic commentator alive.

Now, praises are fine, but they do not influence my work in any way, which is to discover the truth, the truth of how we have been tricked to believe in a round earth hypothesis.

It is funny that you compare the Punisher's work with mine, SINCE YOUR MESSAGES, ROBOSTEVE, ARE MUCH CLOSER IN FORMAT AND CONTENT TO WHAT HE IS WRITING.

Your scientific investigation consists in leaping from random observations to sweeping constructs devoid of evidential justification, rational or empirical.

And you have the nerve to complain about others?...

Your out of focus flow of non facts is matched only by the similar flow of non-thoughts, that is, of pseudogeneralities, purporting to have cosmic significance and amounting only to a high-school bull session, my friend...with delusions of grandeur...

Your genteel "ironic" cynicism, the logorrheic emptiness, your weary, muted disdain for all viewpoints, makes it clear that you are not serious about any threds posted here.

Nobody needs your fucking tl;dr comments, if you are not able to read a multiple paragraphs message, then shut the fuck up, and go the children's board, there are plenty of them...

henry, nodoby so far has been able to present my documentation, the numbers, the photographs of the visual targets, and the research to actually find those photographs...

Bending light has been used too often by other FE proponents to get out of a difficult situation, I never use such an argument to discuss physics.