Forumul Scientia
August 20, 2014, 06:50:22 *
Bine ai venit, Vizitator. Trebuie să te autentifici sau să îţi creezi un cont.
Ai pierdut sau nu ai primit emailul care conţine codul de activare al contului?

Autentifică-te cu numele de utilizator, parola şi precizează durata sesiunii.

SPRIJINĂ DEZVOLTAREA SCIENTIA

Noutăţi: Am publicat Regulamentul de utilizare a forumului Scientia. Îl puteţi citi în secţiunea intitulată "Regulamentul de utilizare a forumului. CITEŞTE-L!".
 
   Pagina principală   Ajutor Caută Autentificare Creează un cont  
Pagini: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   În jos
  Imprimă  
Ajutor Subiect: Mistere ale Pamantului - Curbura la Suprafata  (Citit de 30903 ori)
0 Utilizatori şi 1 Vizitator pe acest subiect.
sandokhan
Junior
**

Popularitate: +0/-1
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 118


« : Martie 12, 2008, 08:23:36 »

Prima formula: H = R(1 - cos@)
H = diferenta de altitudine dintre doua puncte aflate la suprafata Pamantului

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/m/a/0000r6ws_mam666se.gif

R = earth radius, 6378.164 kilometers
@ = s/R
s = arclength between the two points measured on the surface
H = difference in altitude

A doua formula: C = R(1 - cos{@/2})
C = curbura maxima la suprafata intre cele doua puncte

English Channel, 34 km distanta, curbura maxima 22.6 metri, 90.6 diferenta de altitudine, intre White Cliffs Dover si Cap Gris Nez (Franta)

Urmatoarele fotografii arata clar ca nu exista nici un fel de curbura intre Anglia si Franta:

Prima dintre ele este facuta chiar pe plaja Cap Gris Nez, nici un centimetru, nici un micron de curbura intre Cap Gris Nez si White Cliffs Dover:

http://www.expedition360.com/journal/archives/2007/09/

http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg

(se poate viziona si pe http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/k/n/000e97gt_kn8yuj9r.jpg )

Stancile Cap Gris Nez, iarasi nici un fel de curbura intre Anglia si Franta:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:France_manche_vue_dover.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/b/1/000e97gt_b12d7apz.jpg

Cum arata Cap Gris Nez: http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/w/m/000e97gt_wma7ffkv.jpg
Si White Cliffs: http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/m/b/000e97gt_mby1jbez.jpg

O alta fotografie facuta chiar pe plaja Cap Gris Nez: ZERO curbura intre Anglia si Franta:

Fotografii pe plaja Cap Gris Nez: http://flickr.com/photos/wstreet/1909270063/in/photostream/
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/k/o/000e97gt_kocpmt0j.jpg

Si acum poza senzationala: http://flickr.com/photos/wstreet/1910078752/
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/j/000e97gt_pja1fzcf.jpg


Lacul Ontario, 53 km distanta de Toronto, curbura de 49 de metri, absolut inexistenta in urmatoarele fotografii:

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoNight.jpg

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG

Other photographs:


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

O curbura de 49 de metri ar insemna o panta ascendenta, un munte de apa de 49 metri in centru (cladire de vreo 15 etaje), si o panta descendenta pana la malul celalalt...

Cateodata este mentionat fenomenul refractiei optice/atmosferice...poate acest fenomen poate fi observat in inelul de gheata Antarctica sau in Arctic, sub conditii foarte speciale, unde gheata poate fi vazuta, cateodata in nori...

Dincolo de maretia peisajului, menita sa taie pur si simplu respiratia privitorului, Ceahlaul a intrat si a ramas insa in istorie datorita misterelor care il inconjoara. Departe de a a egala prin inaltime alte piscuri din tara, masivul poate fi totusi vazut, in zile senine si in anumite conditii de luminozitate a soarelui, de pe tarmul Marii Negre aflat la aproape 500 de kilometri distanta, sau de pe malul la fel de indepartat al Nistrului.

Varful Toaca, Ceahlau - 1904 metri, curbura pana la Marea Neagra 2.4 km

http://www.gardianul.ro/print-102000.html

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

http://www.gardianul.ro/2007/09/30/actuali...02000.html

http://www.infomontan.ro/Galerie/Turism%20Diverse/Files/009.html

Varful omu (In dimineti senine de la Vf. Omu se putea vedea Dunarea sau chiar marea neagra)

Si acum sa aratam ca refractia atmosferica nu joaca nici un rol atunci cand privim muntii de la distanta...

Urmatoare poze sunt luate de pe site-ul:

http://forum.softpedia.com/lofiversion/index.php/t21996.html
http://forum.softpedia.com/lofiversion/index.php/t21996-50.html

(trebuie sa va logati pe forumsoftpedia.com daca doriti sa le vizionati de acolo), sirul de discutii Se Vad Muntii din Bucuresti

Nici un fel de curbura sau fenomen de refractie optica in urmatoarele fotografii luate de pe forumsoftpedia:

Muntii Bucegi vazuti din Colentina:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/j/0/000e97gt_j02lhsp6.jpg

Alte doua poze de exceptie, realizate in Bucuresti:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/f/x/000e97gt_fx1plwge.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/7/t/000e97gt_7t807mil.jpg

Alte imagini:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/f/000e97gt_pfo1rzkd.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/n/8/000e97gt_n8kgpakh.jpg

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/a/v/000e97gt_avyzshyd.jpg

Muntii Bucegi fotografiati de pe platforma Pipera:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/q/s/000e97gt_qsakwxgq.jpg

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/5/8/000e97gt_58sdair0.jpg




Memorat

"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck
Forumul Scientia
« : Martie 12, 2008, 08:23:36 »

 Memorat
Electron
Veteran
*****

Popularitate: +175/-192
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 6973



« Răspunde #1 : Martie 12, 2008, 09:24:28 »

Care e concluzia? Ca trebuie modificate formulele, sau ca suprafata globului nu e curbata ?

e-
Memorat

Don't believe everything you think.
Electron
Veteran
*****

Popularitate: +175/-192
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 6973



« Răspunde #2 : Martie 13, 2008, 01:05:12 »

Am gasit un site unde se calculeaza curbura Pamantului si efectul de "coborare" a pesiajelor indepartate --> link.
Dupa cum vezi, formula propusa de tine nu este foarte relevanta pentru largimea orizontului, pentru ca ea presupune ca noi privim mereu in directia perpendiculara pe raza la capatul careia ne aflam. Cu alte cuvinte, definitia propusa de tine pentru "curbura" este gresita.
De fapt, gandeste-te ce se intampla cand esti in mijlocul oceanului, si tot orizontul e doar apa. Cum e posibil, daca pamantul nu e curb, sau daca aceasta curbura nu ar fi observabila? In plus, cand ne uitam la orizont, nu ne uitam in directia propusa de fomula ta, ci de fapt ne uitam "in jos" sub un unghi care nu e neglijabil, asa cum e desenat si demonstrat pe site-ul de mai sus. In plus, cu cat suntem mai sus (fata de nivelul marii) cu atat orizontul e mai larg, ceea ce nu e nici o surpriza. De asemenea, muntii inalti (varfurile) din departare sunt vizibili, chiar daca baza lor e in afara orizontului vizibil. 

Nu inteleg care e misterul Huh. In fotografiile propuse de tine, ori se observa zone inalte din departare, ori observatorul e la inaltime, ori efectul de miraj datorat refractiei atmosferice e foarte important (acesta depinde de gradientul de temperatura al aerului, deci e un fenomen variabil in timp). In plus e specificat pe insasi paginile respective, cum e cazul fotografiilor orasului Toronto peste lac.

e-
Memorat

Don't believe everything you think.
Forumul Scientia
« Răspunde #2 : Martie 13, 2008, 01:05:12 »

 Memorat
sandokhan
Junior
**

Popularitate: +0/-1
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 118


« Răspunde #3 : Martie 13, 2008, 07:40:12 »

Electron, mie imi place sa stau de vorba cu cineva care se pricepe...formulele postate de mine sunt absolut corecte...citeste din nou ce scrie pe acel site...ai facut-o in graba...autorul include inaltimea h in formula sa...in rest este aceeasi cu cea oferita de mine...a folosit formula binecunoscuta din cosine Taylor expansion, adica cos x = 1 - x^2/2! + ..., pentru @ less than 0.1 radiani (adica s mai putin decat 637 kilometri) putem aproxima cu cos @ = 1 - @^2/2, si atunci formula simplificata, a mea, devine:

C = s^2/8R , adica formula absolut corecta...crezi ca as fi intrat aici cu vreo informatie incompleta sau gresita? Ai incredere in ceea ce scriu...

Iar formula originala este: C = R(1 - cos{@/2}), simplificata: C = s^2/8R, daca nu ai la dispozitie modalitatea de a calcula @ in radiani...

Asa cum am explicat, light reffraction nu joaca nici un fel de rol pentru pozele oferite de mine, sau nu vezi bine? Nu exista nici un fel de curbura intre Anglia si Franta, pe o distanta de 34 km, poze facuta de pe plaja; daca Pamantul era rotund/sferic, atunci curbura ar fi fost evidenta, cea de 22.6 metri...

Gandeste bine ce scrii, si ce citesti pe acel site (autorul face presupunerea ca ar exista un fel de refractie optica, PENTRU VIZIONAREA MUNTILOR SAU OBIECTELOR LA MARE DISTANTA, sa zicem mai mare de vreo 120 km; asa cum vezi din pozele cu Bucegii, refractia atmosferica nu joaca nici un fel de rol; citeste marturiilor celor care vad Varful Toaca chiar de la Mangalia, si asta se poate observa de sute de ani...nici un fel de refractie atmosferica nu poate explica asta...chestia cu refractia optica a fost oferita publicului ca sa fie adormit, sa nu afle ca forma pamantului este de fapt cu totul alta...)

Pozele cu Toronto nu includ nici un fel de mirage...sau nu se vede bine? Mirage, ce spune autorul, se refera LA REFLEXIA CLADIRILOR IN APA LACULUI ONTARIO, get it? Poza este complet clara, nici un fel de atmospheric reffraction...este incredibil cum poti veni cu astfel de explicatii pentru distanta mici, de 34-53 de km...

Faptul ca se pot vedea White Cliffs tocmai din Franta este un fapt binecunoscut de secole...

"On a clear day you can see right across from the Dover cliffs to the cliffs on the French coast at Cap Gris Nez" - http://www.dover.gov.uk/museum/resource/articles/cliffs.asp

Acum ai sa vezi care este concluzia...

Mai intai mai multe poze cu Stramtoarea Gibraltar (distanta 13 km, curbura de 3.3 metri, absolut inexistenta in aceste poze):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:View_of_Morocco_in_Tarifa,_Spain_2005.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/z/o/000e97gt_zowzp54w.jpg

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/1/j/000e97gt_1j7t2vt0.jpg

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/r/c/000e97gt_rc8kdztz.jpg

http://www.worldhum.com/images/uploads/straitofgibraltar.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/d/u/000e97gt_du307qym.jpg

http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/straits_gibraltar.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/7/s/000e97gt_7sbois51.jpg

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/y/s/000e97gt_ys8osx2q.jpg

Documentarul video Islamic History of Europe, autorul filmat chiar pe plaja tarmului european, se poate vedea tarmul marocan/african, nici un fel de curbura vizibila (intre 2:53 si 3:53):

Small | Large


Mai sunt si multe alte locatii care arata clar ca nu exista curbura, S. Catalina-California, Corfu-Albania...

C. Columb stia exact unde va merge, pentru ca avea la el harta Pamantului Plat, cea adevarata (utilizata si de F. Magellan, J. Cabot) si care se afla si in posesia lui Piri Reis, amiralul flotei otomane...

Forma adevarata a Pamantului este PLATA si nu rotunda/sferica...

Ca sa dovedim 100% acest lucru vom avea nevoie de:

-sa explicam cum au fost falsificate toate misiunile spatiale Nasa (Apollo, Voyager, Galileo, Viking...) si misiunile spatiale Gagarin/Leonov/Mir/Soyuz
-cum sunt falsificate toate zborurile Space Shuttle
-asasinarea lui Tycho Brahe de catre Johannes Kepler
-explicatia pendulului lui Foucault
-imposibilitatea rotatiei atmosferei in teoria heliocentrica
-explicatia eclipselor solare/lunare (care nu sunt cauzate de Pamant sau de Luna)
-cum orbiteaza de fapt satelitii (geostationari si orbitali) pe baza Cosmic Ray Device inventata tot de Tesla
+multe alte detalii

DISTANTA ADEVARATA SOARE-PAMANT, pe baza fotografiilor senzationale facute de Thierry Legault si David Cortner in timpul Venus/Mercury/ISS/Atlantis transits:

There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers in the background.

Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg

The ISS/Atlantis station/shuttle are maneuvered by remote control, because of the radiation no astronauts can be aboard; the entire space shuttle program has been faked since 1979; ISS/Atlantis use the Cosmic Ray Device of Nikola Tesla to orbit above the earth (as do all other satellites, whether geostationary or orbital).

http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg

http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg

Aceeasi distanta ISS-Soare la fel ca in pozele Mercur-Soare transit...

Alte fotografii care arata acelasi lucru:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg

http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg


http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/images/shuttle-iss-sun.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609/iss_shuttle_legault_c88.jpg

http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg


« Ultima modificare: Martie 14, 2008, 07:34:02 de către sandokhan » Memorat

"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck
Electron
Veteran
*****

Popularitate: +175/-192
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 6973



« Răspunde #4 : Martie 14, 2008, 10:59:02 »

Nu am spus ca formulele sunt incorecte, ci ca interpretarea lor e gresita. Promit sa reiau aceste formule pentru a explica mai exact ce vreau sa spun.

Pana atunci, cateva observatii si intrebari:

1) in legatura cu ISS si distanta pana la soare: Tu ai auzit de conceptul de "marime aparenta" ? Spre exemplu, de pe Pamant, Luna si Soarele au (aproape) aceeasi marime aparenta. Tu spui ca cele doua corpuri ceresti sunt la aceeasi distanta de Pamant? Daca compari ISS si palaneta Mercur, contra Soarelui, care e concluzia?

Legat de :
Citat
C. Columb stia exact unde va merge, pentru ca avea la el harta Pamantului Plat, cea adevarata (utilizata si de F. Magellan, J. Cabot) si care se afla si in posesia lui Piri Reis, amiralul flotei otomane...

Forma adevarata a Pamantului este PLATA si nu rotunda/sferica...

Ca sa dovedim 100% acest lucru vom avea nevoie de:

-sa explicam cum au fost falsificate toate misiunile spatiale Nasa (Apollo, Voyager, Galileo, Viking...) si misiunile spatiale Gagarin/Leonov/Mir/Soyuz
-cum sunt falsificate toate zborurile Space Shuttle
-asasinarea lui Tycho Brahe de catre Johannes Kepler
-explicatia pendulului lui Foucault
-imposibilitatea rotatiei atmosferei in teoria heliocentrica
-explicatia eclipselor solare/lunare (care nu sunt cauzate de Soare sau de Luna)
-cum orbiteaza de fapt satelitii (geostationari si orbitali) pe baza Cosmic Ray Device inventata tot de Tesla
+multe alte detalii
2) sunt evident foarte interesat de explicatia acestor lucruri Zâmbet

3) Daca Pamantul este plat, de ce nu se vede Australia din Africa? In general, de ce nu se vede orice alt punct de pe glob (respectiv disc), de la o inaltime corespunzatoare ?

4) Daca Pamantul este plat, cum se face "ocolul pamantului" ? Am citit despre teoria cum ca Pamantul este un disc, cu centrul la polul Nord. Este asta imaginea corecta a Pamantului?  Daca da, cum de lungimea tropicului Capricornului este egala cu cea a tropicului Racului? Cum de zborurile cu avionul din Europa in America de Nord dureaza la fel de mult ca cele din Africa in America de Sud ?

Si ca sa inchei, tu ai idee cum s-a masurat raza Pamantului ?

e-
Memorat

Don't believe everything you think.
Electron
Veteran
*****

Popularitate: +175/-192
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 6973



« Răspunde #5 : Martie 14, 2008, 01:26:00 »

Ok, am revazut formula data de tine pentru "curbura" si pentru a explica obiectia mea, iti propun un simplu calcul (am inteles ca esti matematician):

Consideram doua persoane inalte, astfel incat daca poarta ochelari, ochelarii ar fi la exact 2 m de pamant. (Sunt jucatori de baschet de ceva mai mult de 2 metri). Ei bine, consideram niste rame de ochelari, care intre cei doi ochi au o sursa laser care emite raze exact in directia in care cei care-l poarta se uita. (altfel spus, directia in care cineva se uita se defineste prin directia laserului.)

Asadar, avand cei doi baschetbalisti, pe o sfera perfecta, de raza egala cu a Pamantului (consideram R = 6.378.164m, asa cum ai propus in primul post din topic), unde nu exista nici un (d)efect atmosferic, la ce distanta (masurata pe suprafata sferei) trebuie sa se afle cei doi, pentru a nu mai putea vedea laserul celuilalt, in timp ce se uita unul la altul?

De asemenea, ce "curbura", conform definitiei tale, exista la acea distanta ?

Propun acest calcul, pentru a vedea cat de irelevanta e formula data de tine, pentru fenomenul propus analizei aici (vizibilitatea peisajelor la distanta).

Eu am facut calculul, si voi posta o imagine dupa ce faci si tu calculul, pentru a face comparatia. Zâmbet

e-
Memorat

Don't believe everything you think.
sandokhan
Junior
**

Popularitate: +0/-1
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 118


« Răspunde #6 : Martie 14, 2008, 08:03:58 »

Ca sa nu mai lungim celelalte siruri de discutii, iti voi raspunde aici la toate chestiile...

Exista site-ul care iti explica cum au fost calculate, luand in calcul ideile crete ale avocatului rosicrucian E. Hubble, toate vitezele amintite...

In urmatorul mesaj, forma adevarata a Universului...

Motivul pentru care M. Pavlovic spune Scientific Illusion este self-explanatory: teoria relativitatii este o iluzie (in cel mai bun caz) dar si o adevarata bataie de joc pentru orice om de stiinta serios...vezi comentariile lui Tesla despre conceptul space-time-curvature, despre timp, si alte concepte einsteniene...Pavlovic are dreptate si nu se insala deloc...citeste toate cartea lui si urmatoarele informatii, ca sa nu mai vorbim de cele cateva zeci de linkuri oferite dincolo...

Intra in special pe:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm#rel3
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lorentz.htm
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm

Adu-ti aminte tot timpul de citatele lui Einstein:
'If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then relativity is wrong' (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 106).

If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false.' {Quotation of A. Einstein from a letter to Erwin Finley-Freundlich: August 1913}

Experimentul Michelson-Morley a fost special conceput pentru a nu arata existenta etherului, vezi ce am scris la sirul respectiv.

Poate va fi o surpriza pentru tine sa vezi ca, de fapt, Einstein credea cu tot sufletelul lui in teoria aetherului:

Einstein 1923:

With regard to the ether, Einstein states:

Light propagates through the sea of ether, in which the Earth is moving. In other words, the ether is moving with respect to the Earth...

Einstein 1920:

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

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

Einstein 1928:

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




Perhaps the strangest feature of all, and the most unfortunate to the development of science, is the use of the thought-experiment. The expression itself is a contradiction in terms, since an experiment is a search for new knowledge that cannot be confirmed, although it might be predicted, by a process of logical thought. A thought-experiment on the other hand cannot provide new knowledge; if it gives a result that is contrary to the theoretical knowledge and assumptions on which it is based then a mistake must have been made. Some of the results of the theory were obtained in this way and differ from the original assumptions...
A common reaction of experimental physicists to the theory is that although they do not understand it themselves it is so widely accepted that it must be correct. I must confess that until recent years this was my own attitude. I was, however, rather more than usually interested in the subject from a practical point of view, having repeated, with microwaves instead of optical waves(Essen 1955), the celebrated Michelson- Morley experiment, which was the starting point of the theory. Then with the introduction of atomic clocks, and the enormous increase in the accuracy of time measurements that they made possible, the relativity effects became of practical significance...

Many of the thought-experiments described by Einstein and others involve the comparison of distant clocks. Such comparisons are now made every day at many laboratories throughout the world. The techniques are well known. It seems reasonable, therefore, to consider the thought-experiments in terms of these techniques. When this is done, the errors in the thought-experiments become more obvious. The fact that errors in the theory arise in the course of the thought- experiments may explain why they were not detected for so long. Theoretical physicists might not have considered them critically from an experimental point of view. But if one has been actually performing such experiments for many years, one is in a more favorable position to detect any departure from the correct procedure. In the existing climate of opinion, one needed to be very confident to speak of definite errors in the theory. Was there not perhaps some subtle interpretation that was being overlooked? A study of the literature did not reveal any, but even so it was familiarity with the experiments that gave one the necessary confidence to maintain a critical attitude.

The literature sometimes reveals a remarkable vagueness of expression, a lack of a clear statement of the assumptions of the theory, and even a failure to appreciate the basic ideas of physical measurement. Ambiguities are not absent from Einstein's own papers, and various writers, even when advancing different interpretations of the theory, are correct in as much as these interpretations can all be attributed to Einstein...

The contraction of length and the dilation of time can now be understood as representing the changes that have to be made to make the results of measurement consistent. There is no question here of a physical theory but simply of a new system of units in which c is constant, and length and time do not have constant units but have units that vary with v2/c2. Thus they are no longer independent, and space and time are intermixed by definition and not as a result of some peculiar property of nature... If the theory of relativity is regarded simply as a new system of units it can be made consistent but it serves no useful purpose... The argument about the clock paradox has continued interminably, although the way the paradox arose and its explanation follow quite clearly from a careful reading of Einstein's paper... The experiment is often expressed in the dramatized form of two twins, one of whom returns from a round trip younger than his brother; and in this form it has received wide publicity... It is illogical to suggest that a result obtained on the basis of the special theory is correct but is a consequence of a completely different theory developed some years later. It is also illogical to assume that accelerations have no effect as he does in A's picture of the events and then to assume that gravitation, which in the general theory is assumed to be equivalent to acceleration, does have an effect... It may be surprising, therefore, to find that a more critical examination of the experiments and the experimental conditions suggests that there is no experimental support for the theory... The experiments of the Michelson-Morley type cannot be taken as supporting the theory, because the theory was developed in order to explain the null result that was obtained...

A critical examination of Einstein's papers reveals that in the course of thought-experiments he makes implicit assumptions that are additional and contrary to his two initial principles. The initial postulates of relativity and the constancy of the velocity of light lead directly to length contraction and time dilation simply as new units of measurements, and in several places Einstein gives support to this view by making his observers adjust their clocks. More usually, and this constitutes the second set of assumptions, he regards the changes as being observed effects, even when the units are not deliberately changed. This implies that there is some physical effect even if it is not understood or described. The results are symmetrical to observers in relative motion; and such can only be an effect in the process of the transmission of the signals. The third assumption is that the clocks and lengths actually change. In this case the relativity postulate can no longer hold.

The first approach, in which the units of measurement are changed, is not a physical theory, and the question of experimental evidence does not arise. There is no evidence for the second approach because no symmetrical experiment has ever been made. There is no direct experimental evidence of the third statement of the theory because no experiments have been made in an inertial system. There are experimental results that support the idea of an observed time dilation, but accelerations are always involved, and there is some indication that they are responsible for the observed effects.




Vezi si http://uk.geocities.com/kevinharkess/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html sectiunea Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong


Poti sa introduci o curbura de 2 m in formula mea, vezi ce distanta va iesi...la 1,8 metri de exemplu (6 ft), distanta este de 9.6 km sau 6 mile...

Marime aparenta...mey electron...pozele arata clar nu exista decat cel mult 2-3 km intre ISS/Atlantis si Soare, si o distanta similara (un pic mai mica) intre Mercur si Soare...au disparut cei 148,999,599 km dintre ISS si Soare, si cei 69,000,000 km dintre Mercur si Soare...compara cu atentie fotografiile, aceleasi distante Mercur/ISS - Soare si mai important aceleasi diametre, vreo 50 de metri...


http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg

http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg

http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg

http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg


http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/images/shuttle-iss-sun.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609/iss_shuttle_legault_c88.jpg

http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg





« Ultima modificare: Martie 14, 2008, 08:50:38 de către sandokhan » Memorat

"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck
sandokhan
Junior
**

Popularitate: +0/-1
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 118


« Răspunde #7 : Martie 14, 2008, 08:43:13 »

Inainte de anul aparitiei lucrarii lui Koppernigk, De Revolutionibus (un citat minunat mai jos), au existat doar 12 oameni, toti membrii ai aceleiasi societati secrete, Brotherhood of the Sun (Rosenkreuzer), si anume: Yajnavalkya, Aryabhatta, Madhava si Bhaskara in India (secta orientala a Fratiei Soarelui, Surya Yoga), Platon, Eratosthenes, Eudoxus si Aristotel (scoala lui Platon a idolatrizarii Soarelui/Osiris/Sirius B), si Philolaus, Aristarchus, Herakleides si Seleucus (scoala lui Pitagora, tot de idolatrizare a Soarelui/Elementului Foc)...

Koppernigk, Galileo, Bruno (arestat de Inchizitie pentru publicarea cartii De Vinculis in Genere si pentru practicile sale de magie neagra, invatate de la John Dee, seful suprem Rosenkreuzer in Europa, discipolul sau fiind Francis Bacon, fondatorul London Royal Society, si nicidecum pentru vreo afirmatie despre vreun sistem planetar), Kepler, Newton faceau parte tot din Rosenkreuzer.

Tycho Brahe, cel mai faimos astronom din toate timpurile, avea la dispozitie 34 de volume cu date precise despre sistemul planetar geocentric, si aratase greselile imense din opera lui Koppernigk. J. Kepler, un astrolog marunt, a fost trimis sa intre in preajma lui Brahe, pe care l-a otravit in 1601, pentru a ii sustrage cele 34 de volume.

Kepler si-a copiat cele trei legi care ii poarta numele din Aryabhattya; in timp ce Newton si-a copiat toate rezultatele din analiza matematica/fizica din sutrele indiene ale scolii de matematica/fizica de la Kerala (si Leibnitz si-a copiat rezultatele tot de acolo; lovitura data de rosicrucienii a fost geniala: oferirea unui presupus conflict in vazul lumii, intre Newton si Leibnitz (amandoi initiati rosicrucieni), astfel incat atentia publicului sa fie deturnata de la intrebarile esentiale care ar fi trebuie sa si le puna privind sursa adevarata a conceptelor de analiza matematica pe care acestia le-au publicat...si nu au fost singurii...John Wallis, James Gregory au publicat si ei rezultate inexplicabile, fara demonstratii, din analiza matematica, care coincideau perfect cu alte lucrari publicate mai bine de o mie de ani inainte), legaturile comerciale dintre orasul unde exista cea mai mare scoala de matematica/fizica a antichitatii/evului mediu si Europa fiind binecunoscute de peste 3.000 de ani...).

Mai mult Newton a copiat cuvant cu cuvant opera marelui om de stiinta arab, Ibn Al-Haytham, publicand mai tarziu, Opticks.

Tot din Rosenkreuzer faceau parte G. Gamow si E. Hubble, autorii teoriei Big Bang/Expanding Universe...

Din Hubble:

" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature…”

Acest unknown principle este aetherul, de unde provin neutrinii, radiatia numita neutron, efectul Compton si multe altele...

Hubble made two mistakes:

The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.

The second lay in the hypothesis that his "law" was "clearly linear", thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good "first approximation" of a logarithmic curve.
The Doppler effect, star aberration, and even the  change of wavelength due to the Compton effect, can be explained by taking into consideration the aether field the existence of which was confirmed by many experiments made by Nikola Tesla (see also the Airy experiment).

The aether, by definition, is the light-carrying medium.



Toate misiunile Nasa/Space Shuttle/Mir au fost falsificate...am la dispozitie toate dovezile/explicatiile...pana si D. Prunariu a fost si este membru Rosenkreuzer, vezi: http://www.masonicforum.ro/ro/nr14/prunariu.html

Toate fotografiile de pe Hubble Telescope sunt absolut false, realizate pe calculator, asa cum au fost falsificate si toate pozele misiunii Voyager, Nasa a ascuns ca avea acces la virtual reality landscape software inca din 1969; inexplicabile atat sub teoria Big Bang cat si sub cealalta "teorie", superstring theory...

Pozele cu English Channel iti arata clar ca nu exista nici un fel de curbura vizuala la suprafata Pamantului; iar Pamantul nu poate fi si plat si rotund in acelasi timp...poti sa-ti faci propriul tau experiment care sa-ti arate ca nu exista curbura la suprafata; pe o plaja/litoral, o distanta de 9,6 km, curbura fiind de 1,8 metri; te indepartezi de un prim grup, in timp ce privesti prin luneta/binoclu performant, pana atingi distanta de 9,6 km...

Soarele/Luna sunt discuri aplatizate...asa cum se poate vedea de la orice observator astronomic...toate celelalte planete sunt discuri aplatizate...orbiteaza pe acelasi principiu pe care zboara si un UFO...pe orbite in forma de EPICLICLURI, care au fost modificate de Kepler in elipse...

Iata harta adevarata a Polului Nord, daca crezi sau nu, facuta la inceputul sec. XVI, de catre cel mai faimos dintre matematicienii Rosenkreuzer, adica Gerald Kremer, cunoscut sub numele de Mercator...

http://www.helmink.com/Antique_Map_Mercator_Arctic/Antique_Map_Mercator_Arctic.jpg

Nimeni, nici un submarin, sau expeditie nu a ajuns vreodata dincolo de o anumita latitudine...Peary si Cook nu au descoperit niciodata Polul Nord...zona dincolo de Oceanul Interior nu este accesibila sau vizibila...acolo se afla Garden of Eden, sau Gradina din Eden...

Iata adevarata a continentelor, care era in posesia lui Columb (global Piri Reis map):

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/e/000e97gt_pem6hbvo.gif

Cum se vad continentele de sus:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/9/m/000e97gt_9mg9xmq1.jpg (aici autorul diagramei a exagerat cu inelul de gheata Antarctica, dincolo de Antarctica se gasesc teritoriile descoperite de amiralul R. Byrd, 1929, 1946-1947, si unde s-au adapostit nazistii, care au parasit Germania/Norvegia in mai 1945)

O alta diagrama a continentelor/orbita Soarelui/Lunii:

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/flying_leaf/test1.jpg

Mai sunt si altele, mult mai extraordinare, dar nu le pot include aici...

Si acum citatul promis din Koppernigk (al nostru Copernic), adoratorul Soarelui:

In regard to his cosmology, Copernicus consistently appealed to the 'harmony' of his system, but it was a harmony ennobled by a sun that he personified, and, some say, deified, way beyond what we now know as its ability to convert helium into hydrogen. Copernicus writes:


In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles' Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth (De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10).

Karl Popper shows the origin of these cultic ideas:


Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus' idea of placing the sun rather than the earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato's Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature.Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status.then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea (Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187).

Popper couches his critique of Copernicus in rather polite terms, but essentially he is saying that Copernicus' brainchild had all the earmarks of originating from pagan sun-worship. As Wolfgang Smith notes:


In the Renaissance movement championed by Marsiglio Ficino, the doctrine came alive again, but in a somewhat altered form; one might say that what Ficino instituted was indeed a religion, a kind of neo-paganism. Copernicus himself was profoundly influenced by this movement, as can be clearly seen from numerous passages in the De Revolutionibus (The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology, p. 174).

Upon reading Copernicus' De Revolutionibus, one is struck by the preponderance of philosophical and humanistic arguments that he brings to his aid. As J. D. Bernal notes: '[Copernicus'] reasons for his revolutionary change were essentially philosophic and aesthetic,' and in a later edition he is more convinced that the 'reasons were mystical rather than scientific' (Science in History, 1st edition, London, Watts, 1954; 2nd edition, 1965). Overall, Copernicus presents about five-dozen arguments, at least half of which are solely philosophical in nature. Although the other half of his argumentation depends more on mechanics, these also have philosophical appendages to them (e.g., his view that the universe is infinite and therefore cannot have a center). Very few of his arguments are based on his own personal observations, since Copernicus merely reworked the observations of his Greek predecessors. In fact, Copernicus concludes that because the Greeks did not detail their cosmological models more thoroughly, history (and God) have called upon him to provide the long-awaited documentation of true cosmology.






Memorat

"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck
sandokhan
Junior
**

Popularitate: +0/-1
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 118


« Răspunde #8 : Martie 14, 2008, 09:00:00 »

Din nou fotografiile de pe English Channel...

English Channel, 34 km distanta, curbura maxima 22.6 metri, 90.6 diferenta de altitudine, intre White Cliffs Dover si Cap Gris Nez (Franta)

Urmatoarele fotografii arata clar ca nu exista nici un fel de curbura intre Anglia si Franta:

Prima dintre ele este facuta chiar pe plaja Cap Gris Nez, nici un centimetru, nici un micron de curbura intre Cap Gris Nez si White Cliffs Dover:

http://www.expedition360.com/journal/archives/2007/09/

http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg

(se poate viziona si pe http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/k/n/000e97gt_kn8yuj9r.jpg )

Stancile Cap Gris Nez, iarasi nici un fel de curbura intre Anglia si Franta:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:France_manche_vue_dover.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/b/1/000e97gt_b12d7apz.jpg

Cum arata Cap Gris Nez: http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/w/m/000e97gt_wma7ffkv.jpg
Si White Cliffs: http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/m/b/000e97gt_mby1jbez.jpg

O alta fotografie facuta chiar pe plaja Cap Gris Nez: ZERO curbura intre Anglia si Franta:

Fotografii pe plaja Cap Gris Nez: http://flickr.com/photos/wstreet/1909270063/in/photostream/
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/k/o/000e97gt_kocpmt0j.jpg

Si acum poza senzationala: http://flickr.com/photos/wstreet/1910078752/
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/j/000e97gt_pja1fzcf.jpg

Faptul ca se pot vedea White Cliffs tocmai din Franta este un fapt binecunoscut de secole...

"On a clear day you can see right across from the Dover cliffs to the cliffs on the French coast at Cap Gris Nez" - http://www.dover.gov.uk/museum/resource/articles/cliffs.asp


Memorat

"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck
Electron
Veteran
*****

Popularitate: +175/-192
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 6973



« Răspunde #9 : Martie 15, 2008, 12:08:49 »

O alta diagrama a continentelor/orbita Soarelui/Lunii:

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/flying_leaf/test1.jpg

Mai sunt si altele, mult mai extraordinare, dar nu le pot include aici...

In sfarsit ceva pe care putem discuta. Multumesc. Zâmbet

1) Daca asta e situatia cu Soarele/Luna si continentele, imi poti explica cum de se observa fenomenul de zi/noapte? Cum se explica fenomenele de rasarit si apus a Soarelui ?

2) Daca Pamantul e plat, cum se explica faptul ca obiectele nelegate, si oamenii, nu zboara in spatiu liber, iar corpurile cad spre Pamant ?

3) Cum se explica rotatia boltei ceresti, adica a constelatiilor, de la anotimp la anotimp?

4) Aveam impresia ca vrei sa impartasesti ce stii cu noi. De ce nu poti include mai multe imagini, si mai extraordinare? 

5) Ai ramas dator cu varsta Pamantului si a Universului. Care sunt aceste valori, si cum s-au determinat ele?


e-

PS: multumesc pentru raspunsurile de pana acum, inclusiv cel cu curbura Pamantului. Voi reveni la asta in continuare, dar ca prioritate doresc sa aflu ce ai de spus legat de intrebarile despre "the big picture" Zâmbet
Memorat

Don't believe everything you think.
sandokhan
Junior
**

Popularitate: +0/-1
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 118


« Răspunde #10 : Martie 16, 2008, 01:16:56 »

Una dintre cele mai interesante carti pe tema Pamantului Plat a fost cu siguranta Earth is not a Globe. S. Rowbotham, dupa ce a facut mai multe experimente cu luneta/telescop (le voi pune aici mai jos), a ajuns la concluzia ca Pamantul este de fapt plat si nu rotund/sferic. In cartea sa comite cateva greseli, din cauza ca nu a luat in calcul alte surse/informatii: presupune ca Luna ar cauza eclipsa solara, calculeaza gresit distanta Pamant-Soare (care nu este decat de vreo 28-30 de km; asa cum se poate vedea clar din comparatia fotografiilor cu Sun-ISS, Sun-Mercury transits, Soarele are doar vreo 5 km in diametru; sursa energiei sale, precum si mecanismul prin care orbiteaza deasupra pamantului era binecunoscut inca din antichitate; Mercur si Venus orbiteaza in jurul Soarelui de forma discoidala, impreuna orbiteaza deasupra Pamantului in jurul Polului Nord, in timp ce Marte &co. orbiteaza deasupra Soarelui tot in jurul Polului Nord)...

Experimentele lui S. Rowbotham:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za08.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za09.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za10.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za12.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za13.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za15.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za16.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za17.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za18.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za19.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za20.htm

Unul dintre cele mai faimoase sectiuni este desigur:
WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD (de ce corpul unei nava va disparea la orizont inaintea catargului)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

Despre apus/rasarit...si altele...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za24.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za25.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm
CONTINUED DAYLIGHT IN THE EXTREME SOUTH

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za59.htm
(despre faptul ca presupusa rotatie a pamantului in jurul Soarelui nu explica deloc succesiunea anotimpurilor)

De ce au avut nevoie rosicrucienii de o inclinatia a pamantului fata de axa verticala cu aprox. 23.5 grade?

As well as orbiting the stationary earth every 24 hours, the sun also follows a spiral orbit from north to south each year. That is what gives us the 4 seasons.

Equinoxes, solstices, and tropics are the result of the north-south motion of the sun, starting with the vernal or spring equinox on March 21, the official beginning of spring in the northern hemisphere.

On that day, the sun lies on the celestial equator. The word equinox refers to the fact that, on this day, the night is equal to the day: each is twelve hours long. The sun is directly above the equator, so its rays fall vertically down.

Through March, April, and May, the sun moves north. On June 22 it reaches its most northerly point, 23 1/2° above the equator. In the northern hemisphere that day is called the summer solstice. It is the longest day of the year and the official beginning of summer. The sun lies on the circle of the earth called the Tropic of Cancer.
On September 23, the sun, moving south, reaches the equator again. The day is again 12 hours long. That day is called the autumnal equinox and is the official beginning of autumn.

On December 22, the sun reaches its most southerly point. That day is called the winter solstice and is the official beginning of winter. The sun shines up from beneath the equator. At noon the sun is straight overhead at points on the earth's Tropic of Capricorn, 23 1/2° south of the equator. At that time, it is the summer solstice in the southern hemisphere. The cycle again repeats itself and gives us our 4 seasons and the solar year.

The winter solstice occurs on June 22 in the southern hemisphere. 3 days later it is June 25 or 'Christmas' day in the southern hemisphere.

Soarele si Luna au acelasi diametru; acelasi lucru intamplandu-se doar cu doua alte stele (devenite planete): Jupiter si Tiamat...

Pentru varsta Pamantului exista o combinatie imbatabila:

Faint Young Sun Paradox combinat cu imposibilitatea aparitiei granitului din magma/lava topita...

Aduceti-va aminte de ce povestesc toate mitologiile: creatie din ETHER (la evrei, de exemplu, Lumina-AOR, provine din Ether-AWIR).

O singura planeta, a noastra, in mijlocul Universului; deasupra orbitand Luna/Soarele/Planetele/Stelele...intre noi si aceste corpuri ceresti exista un Dom Ceresc, de care nici macar nazistii cu UFO-urile lor intre 1941-1945 nu au putut sa treaca, determinand unul dintre savantii germani sa exclame: There is no outer space...sub acest Dom exista un strat de ether, asa numitul plan astral, unde au murit cam vreo 9 astronauti sovietici intre 1957-1961, din cauza radiatiilor uriase gasite acolo...

In afara celui de al doilea Dom care inconjoara orbitelele corpurilor ceresti, se afla Norul Oort, compus in intregime din bucati de gheata; primul astronom care si-a dat seama de acest lucru a fost Hans Horbiger, care a inteles ca Milky Way (Calea Lactee) este de fapt Norul Oort si este compus in intregime din gheata...am la dispozitie cea mai formidabila documentatie pe tema inexistentei black holes, si cum a aparut aceasta industrie...despre ce sunt de fapt quasarii, altadata, aici...

Demonstratia imposibilitatii rotatiei atmosferei pe un pamant de forma sferica/rotunda cu rotatie in jurul Soarelui:

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

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

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

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

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

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

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

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

"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck
Electron
Veteran
*****

Popularitate: +175/-192
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 6973



« Răspunde #11 : Martie 16, 2008, 05:57:49 »

sandokhan, apreciez faptul ca esti dispus sa prezinti sursele tale, pentru ca da sansa tuturor sa evalueze ideile tale, plecand de la niste puncte comune. Zâmbet

Ca atare, voi studia cartea "Earth not a Globe" si voi dezbate aici argumentele de acolo.

For the record, eu consider ca Pamantul e rotund (glob), pentru ca aceasta forma face parte din imaginea pe care mi-am format-o despre Univers, o imagine care pentru mine este cat se poate de coerenta.

Exista o serie de fenomene care se pot explica printr-un Pamant in forma de glob, pe care cartea asta incearca sa arate ca se pot explica rational si cu un Pamant plat. Eu accept aceasta posibiliate, si daca tu imi vei demonstra ca asta inseamna ca Pamantul e de fapt plat si nu rotund, voi admite ca m-am inselat legat de forma Pamantului.

Am insa o intrebare preliminara: Dat fiind ca tu folosesti aceasta sursa pentru a apara punctul de vedere cum ca Pamantul este plat, daca eu iti demonstrez ca argumentele si rationamentele din cartea asta sunt gresite, vei accepta ca e posibil sa te fi inselat in legatura cu forma Pamantului?

e-

PS: atasez o imagine cu calculul de care vorbeam intr-un post precedent, sper sa-mi spui daca esti de acord cu calculul si cu rezultatele. Zâmbet



* curbura_electron.gif (43.92 KB, 1240x660 - văzut 374 ori.)
Memorat

Don't believe everything you think.
Electron
Veteran
*****

Popularitate: +175/-192
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 6973



« Răspunde #12 : Martie 17, 2008, 04:44:08 »

sandokhan, vad ca esti cam ocupat si nu raspunzi la toate intrebarile de aici. Nu e nici o problema, eu voi merge inainte cu demonstratia,pas cu pas, si in orice moment ai timp si vrei sa imi areti ca rationamentul meu e gresit, observatiile (si argumentele tale) vor fi binevenite. Zâmbet

Sa incepem:

Problematica din acest topic e simpla: Determinarea formei Pamantului, adica deducerea carei presupuneri este adevarata:

[P] Pamantul este plat (avocat: sandokhan)
[C] Pamantul este curb/glob (avocat: Electron)

Pentru a vedea care parte are dreptate, se aduc in discutie argumentele din cartea lui Parallax (admise ca adevarate de sandokhan) si contra-argumentele lui Electron.

Pasul 1:

In capitolele despre disparitia partii inferioare a navelor care se indreapta de tarm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm), gasim:

Citat din mesajul lui:  Parallax
To argue, for instance, that because the lower part of an outward-bound vessel disappears before the mast-head, the water must be round, is to assume that a round surface only can produce such an effect. But if it can be shown that a simple law of perspective in connection with a plane surface necessarily produces this appearance, the assumption of rotundity is not required, and all the misleading fallacies and confusion involved in or mixed up with it may be avoided.

Traducere:
A argumenta, spre exemplu, ca deoarece partea inferioara a unui vas care se indeparteaza [de tarm] dispare inaintea varfului catargului, apa trebuie sa fie curbata, inseamna  sa presupunem ca doar o suprafata curbata poate produce un asemenea effect. Dar, daca se poate arata ca o simpla lege a perspectivei care se aplica unei suprafete plane, in mod necesar produce aceasta aparenta, presupunerea curburii nu este necesara, si toate greselile inselatoare si confuzia implicate sau asociate cu ea pot fi evitate.

Citat din mesajul lui:  Parallax
All that can be said for it is, that such a phenomenon would exist if the earth were a globe; but it cannot be employed as a proof that the assumption of rotundity is correct.

Traducere: Tot ce se poate spune despre asta [disparitia partii inferioare a vaselor] este ca, un asemenea fenomen ar exista daca pamantul ar fi curb, dar nu poate fi folosita ca dovada ca presupunerea curburii este corecta.

Din cele doua citate, se deduc urmatoarele:
a) fenomenul de disparitie al partii inferioare a navelor este observabil in mod indubitabil, deci nu este negat de nimeni.
b) acest fenomen (a) ar exista daca suprafata Pamantului ar fi plana
c) acest fenomen (a) ar exista daca suprafata Pamantului ar fi curba
d) deoarece b) si c) sunt adevarate, a) nu poate fi folosit ca argument pentru a dovedi adevarul lui [C] si falsitatea lui [P]

Din d) se deduce si urmatoarea concluzie simetrica:
e) deoarece b) si c) sunt adevarate, a) nu poate fi folosit ca argument pentru a dovedi adevarul lui [P] si falsitatea lui [C]

Stim de asemenea ca [P] si [C] nu pot fi amandoua adevarate in acelasi timp, deoarece vorbim de o singura suprafata.

Ceea ce voi face eu in continuare este sa arat ca b) este falsa, independent de adevarul lui [P] sau [C].

In mod evident, daca b) este falsa si c) este adevarata, d) si e) sunt false. In plus, devin adevarate urmatoarele afirmatii:
f) adevarul lui c) permite folosirea lui a) ca argumente pentru a dovedi adevarul lui [C]
g) falsitatea lui b) permite folosirea lui a) ca argument pentru a dovedi falsitatea lui [P]

Sunt pregatiti membrii juriului si avocatul partii cu Pamantul plat?

e-
Memorat

Don't believe everything you think.
sandokhan
Junior
**

Popularitate: +0/-1
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 118


« Răspunde #13 : Martie 17, 2008, 07:38:11 »

Mey electron, tu esti bine intentionat, dar pana sa ajungi avocat al cumetrilor Galileo si Newton mai e...

Eu nu ma bazez pe Earth is not a globe, daca ai remarcat...am introdus cateva date de acolo, pentru ca se potrivea cu intrebarile tale...mai sunt si alte carti...

Uite de exemplu, cea mai recenta pe tema sistemului planetar geocentric, al pamantului stationar; o carte de peste 1000 de pagini, GALILEO WAS WRONG:

http://www.geocentrism.com/ (citate din fiecare capitol)

Cuprinsul cartii: http://www.geocentrism.com/GWW_Samples_Contents.pdf

Citeste tot ce am scris aici...mai ales argumentul despre imposibilitatea rotatiei atmosferei pamantului in sistemul heliocentric...

Daca nu am fi avut de a face cu utilizatori de genul Harap Alb, care-si incep argumentele si discutiile cu afirmatii "spurci", cu toate ca nu prea cunosc tainele fizicii adevarate, si nu-si pot gasi raspunsurile la intrebarile care-i framanta, as fi raspuns la toate intrebarile tale cu documentatie la greu...dar asa...

Faza cu a), b), c) si d) este tare...dar nu ajuta la nimic...in cazul tau...priveste pozele de pe English Channel...nici un centimetru de curbura unde, potrivit teoriei in care tu crezi, ar trebui sa fie 22.6 metri inaltime de curbura...

Citeste Ciocnirea Lumilor...cea mai buna colectie de informatii despre sfarsiturile epocilor #3 si #4, acum aproximativ 3,650 de ani...exodul evreilor din Egipt...

Cerceteaza in istorie despre fenomenul eclipselor SIMULTANE solare/lunare, din Plinius si jurnalul lui Columb...

Apropo de Columb...ce zici de asta...

O DOVADA extrem de interesanta despre faptul ca Pamantul este de fapt PLAT si nicidecum de forma exterioara convexa; din jurnalul de bord/personal al lui Cristofor Columb:

COLUMBUS AND THE FLAT SURFACE OF THE OCEAN


Columbus received the reward offered by the king for being the first one to see a human signal coming from some unseen land. Let's read his own words:


Thursday, 11 October. Steered west-southwest; and encountered a heavier sea than they had met with before in the whole voyage. Saw pardelas and a green rush near the vessel. The crew of the Pinta saw a cane and a log; they also picked up a stick which appeared to have been carved with an iron tool, a piece of cane, a plant which grows on land, and a board. The crew of the Nina saw other signs of land, and a stalk loaded with rose berries. These signs encouraged them, and they all grew cheerful. Sailed this day till sunset, twenty-seven leagues.


After sunset steered their original course west and sailed twelve miles an hour till two hours after midnight, going ninety miles, which are twenty-two leagues and a half; and as the Pinta was the swiftest sailer, and kept ahead of the Admiral, she discovered land and made the signals which had been ordered. The land was first seen by a sailor called Rodrigo de Triana, although the Admiral at ten o'clock that evening standing on the quarter-deck saw a light, but so small a body that he could not affirm it to be land; calling to Pero Gutierrez, groom of the King's wardrobe, he told him he saw a light, and bid him look that way, which he did and saw it; he did the same to Rodrigo Sanchez of Segovia, whom the King and Queen had sent with the squadron as comptroller, but he was unable to see it from his situation. The Admiral again perceived it once or twice, appearing like the light of a wax candle moving up and down, which some thought an indication of land. But the Admiral held it for certain that land was near; for which reason, after they had said the Salve which the seamen are accustomed to repeat and chant after their fashion, the Admiral directed them to keep a strict watch upon the forecastle and look out diligently for land, and to him who should first discover it he promised a silken jacket, besides the reward which the King and Queen had offered, which was an annuity of ten thousand maravedis. At two o'clock in the morning the land was discovered, at two leagues' distance; they took in sail and remained under the square-sail lying to till day, which was Friday, when they found themselves near a small island, one of the Lucayos, called in the Indian language Guanahani. ...Saturday, 13 October. This is a large and level island, with trees extremely flourishing, and streams of water; there is a large lake in the middle of the island, but no mountains: the whole is completely covered with verdure and delightful to behold


The math is simple: 22½ leagues = 90 miles. From 10 to 2 hours after midnight there are 4 hours x 12 miles per hour = 48 miles. The land still was 2 leagues away, which is 8 miles, added to 48 gives 56 miles or above 90 kilometers. By his own words, there was not mountain. The ship could be some 3 meters above the water.


If the water of the ocean was curved, the island would be more than 600 meters below the line of sight of Columbus. Therefore neither he nor the others could see any light from that far a distance. Columbus and all those experts in high sea navigation knew these realities common among mariners: the water surface of the ocean is flat (except for the waves).


Ia sa vedem si din Platon:

Platon, discursul Timaeus:


Plato mentions the Atlantic Ocean, The Atlantic Island, the true ocean (the Pacif), others Islands in the West beyond the Atlantic Island, and beyond the boundless Continent, which is basically the picture of the equidistant projection of the Air Force Map:

Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.

DECI, DINCOLO DE COLOANELE LUI HERCULE SE AFLA OCEANUL ATLANTIC, DINCOLO DE ACESTA SE AFLA ATLANTIDA, MARGINIT DE 'OPPOSITE CONTINENT' ADICA AMERICA DE NORD SI AMERICA DE SUD, DINCOLO SE AFLA 'TRUE OCEAN' ADICA OCEANUL PACIFIC, SI DINCOLO DE PACIFIC, ADEVARATUL CONTINENT, NUMIT IN ANTICHITATE ANTICHTONE (bariera de gheata Antarctica fiind doar marginea exterioara a acestuia; Peary/Cook si Amundsen nu au descoperit, de fapt, NICIODATA Polul Nord/Polul Sud).


Ce zici si de-o vizita prin California? Si acolo, sa sti, ca Pamantul este tot Plat...

http://www.answers.com/topic/catalinasil-jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/76/Catalinasil.jpg

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/t/6/000e97gt_t67y4y0f.jpg

Distanta S. Catalina - California cam vreo 32 de km, o curbura de cam vreo 22 metri...absolut inexistenta...

http://sedulia.blogs.com/photos/california/catalina_island_in_sight_after_rain_3.html

http://sedulia.blogs.com/photos/california/catalina_island_in_sight_after_rain_3.jpg

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/n/1/000e97gt_n1p7uqf6.jpg

Point Dume, California
http://www.cnsm.csulb.edu/departments/geology/people/bperry/GrantPhotos/Coastal1Mar05/226PointDumeClos eViewMar05S.jpg


http://www.gailanderson.org/2007_02_01_archive.html

http://www.asgteach.com/blog/gail/photos/photos_2007/MalibuHike1.jpg

Iarasi S. Catalina:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/6/r/000e97gt_6rgch15e.jpg



http://www.asgteach.com/blog/gail/photos/photos_2007/SantaBarbaraIslands.jpg (island of Santa Cruz seen from California, Point Mugu)

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/8/v/000e97gt_8vs62ls1.jpg

California vazuta din S. Cruz (distanta de vreo 32 de km), o fotografie superba:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12103981@N03/1939298339/







« Ultima modificare: Martie 17, 2008, 07:48:08 de către sandokhan » Memorat

"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck
Electron
Veteran
*****

Popularitate: +175/-192
Deconectat Deconectat

Mesaje: 6973



« Răspunde #14 : Martie 17, 2008, 09:20:29 »

Mey electron, tu esti bine intentionat, dar pana sa ajungi avocat al cumetrilor Galileo si Newton mai e...
Eu ma declar avocatul unei idei (care pentru mine reprezinta in plus realitatea fizica), si anume ca Pamantul e rotund (glob). Faptul ca Galileo si Newton au sustinut aceasta idee este oarecum irelevant pentru noi, pentru ca noi suntem aici dezbatand subiectul, iar ei sunt de mult dusi.

Citat
Eu nu ma bazez pe Earth is not a globe, daca ai remarcat...am introdus cateva date de acolo, pentru ca se potrivea cu intrebarile tale...mai sunt si alte carti...
Cum adica nu te bazezi pe aceasta carte ? Tu esti cel care a postat link-ul spre capitolul pe care eu il voi analiza aici. Esti de acord cu argumentele din carte/capitol sau nu? Daca nu, de ce imi prezinti surse care esti constient ca sunt incorecte? Nu tu ai spus ca toate sursele prezentate de tine vorbesc pentru tine? Daca incepi sa vii cu surse cu care nici tu nu esti de acord, inseamna ca nu ai facut o selectie de surse, ci ai inghitit tot ce avea un titlu care iti pare acceptabil, fara discriminare. (E impresia care mi-o dai, nu te acuz de nimic pana nu te explici). Astept o clarificare din partea ta.

In orice caz, te rog de acum sa prezinti doar surse cu care esti 100% de acord, sau sa specifici ce parti accepti si care nu. Fii integru, e tot ce-ti cer.

Sa stii ca voi continua cu analiza cartii lui Parallax, pentru ca e un foarte bun exercitiu de logica. Zâmbet

Citat
Daca nu am fi avut de a face cu utilizatori de genul Harap Alb, care-si incep argumentele si discutiile cu afirmatii "spurci", cu toate ca nu prea cunosc tainele fizicii adevarate, si nu-si pot gasi raspunsurile la intrebarile care-i framanta, as fi raspuns la toate intrebarile tale cu documentatie la greu...dar asa...
Lasa-l pe HarapAlb cu ale lui. A spus deschis ca nu va participa in discutiile astea, si s-a tinut de cuvant, asa ca deocamdata existenta lui e irelevanta aici. In plus, dat fiind ca aperi adevarul, ar trebui sa nu-ti pese de cum te trateaza ceilalti. Un adevarat idealist apara ceea ce crede indiferent de consecinte. (Consecinte care sincer vorbind, pe un astfel de forum, unde utilizatorii sunt practic anonimi, sunt nule).

Sau poate nu esti un idealist...

Citat
Faza cu a), b), c) si d) este tare...dar nu ajuta la nimic...in cazul tau...
Eu nu am propus-o pentru ca e "tare", ci pentru ca e rationala si logica. Ai spus ca apreciezi aceste lucruri, ceea ce ma bucura, pentru ca exact cu asta voi apara ideile mele. Daca poti arata ca gresesc, la orice punct, te invit din toata inima sa o areti aici, folosind ratiunea si logica. Zâmbet


Citat
priveste pozele de pe English Channel...nici un centimetru de curbura unde, potrivit teoriei in care tu crezi, ar trebui sa fie 22.6 metri inaltime de curbura...
Te rog sa imi areti si mie, cum ai masurat tu curbura in pozele alea (sau in oricare altele). Pana atunci, eu nu vad ce relevanta are faptul ca tu vezi exact ceea ce doresti sa vezi. Pana nu definesti un procedeu rational prin care sa determini curbura din poza, nu poti folosi acele imagini ca argumente.

Nu voi incepe cu alte surse pana nu epuizez pe cea in curs. Nu pot sa citesc tot de-odata, am mai spus-o si o voi repeta de cate ori e nevoie.

e-
« Ultima modificare: Martie 18, 2008, 12:16:12 de către Electron » Memorat

Don't believe everything you think.
Pagini: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   În sus
  Imprimă  
 
Schimbă forumul:  

Creat cu MySQL Creat cu PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums | Sitemap
Validat cu XHTML 1.0! Validat cu CSS!