Max_Almond

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #60 on: May 31, 2018, 10:05:23 AM »
I'm seeing a lot of words - yet I'm still not seeing an answer to the original question.

Surely even to the nearest 1000 miles Sandokhan can provide an answer?

[…]
Therefore, the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km.

Thanks for that: maybe I did see that but assumed it was a joke answer.

Does Sandokhan stand by that? Any other flat earthers agree?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 03:01:59 PM by Max_Almond »

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #61 on: May 31, 2018, 10:58:50 AM »
Does Sandokhan stand by that?

You don't understand.

You have NOTHING going for you.

Unless you can explain the faint young sun paradox, the nuclear furnace model falls apart:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

Unless you can explain the fact that the pressure in the chromosphere is 10-13 BAR, the currently accepted solar model is worthless:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

Unless you can explain the fact that the CNO cycle takes place at the surface of the solar atmosphere, heliocentricity is just a meaningless hypothesis:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377


How do you integrate hollow earth with a flat earth?

You cannot.

HE = curvature, FE = no curvature.

Both FE poles feature huge territories (at least 1,400 miles in diameter) which are inaccesible by land or by air.


The interesting thing, that he even has not understood what the the people 100 years ago thought the ether is and his purpose would be.

So far, you have rejected Maxwell, Whittaker, Feynman and Dirac.

Perhaps Tesla is more to your liking:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2018999#msg2018999 (output energy is higher than input energy for Tesla's bifilar coils)


Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #62 on: May 31, 2018, 10:59:30 AM »
You can be sure that this guy is 100% serious about everything he is writing. The sun is just a few hundred meters in diameter and 10 km above the earth...

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #63 on: May 31, 2018, 11:02:52 AM »
Does Sandokhan stand by that?
You don't understand.

He was referring to your claim here:
[…]
Therefore, the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km.
Do you stand by that, i.e. the claim that the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km?

No wall of text required. Either a three letter answer, or a two letter answer.

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #64 on: May 31, 2018, 11:07:25 AM »
I always provide proofs for my statements.

Ten years of debates have shown that those statements are correct.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946 (ISS/Atlantis solar transit photos/videos)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025 (ISS lunar transit, Hubble solar transit)

The Black Sun in Antarctica, photograph by world famous photographer Fred Bruenjes:



Armstrong and Aldrin might as well have used as a vehicle to the moon a simple carriage driven by reindeers: the photographs show both the Black Sun and the Sun itself at a distance of less than 1000 km from the photographer.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/


Either a three letter answer, or a two letter answer.

Of course.

50km is an upper limit, the actual value is lower than that.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #65 on: May 31, 2018, 12:30:32 PM »
OK he is entirely serious.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #66 on: May 31, 2018, 12:32:35 PM »
OK he is entirely serious.

I told you...

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #67 on: May 31, 2018, 02:13:04 PM »

How do you integrate hollow earth with a flat earth?

You cannot.

HE = curvature, FE = no curvature.

Both FE poles feature huge territories (at least 1,400 miles in diameter) which are inaccesible by land or by air.
That's what I thought. The hollow earth being a sphere, I thought it curious you'd link to Bernard's (Siegmeister's) 1964 work for support.

Max_Almond

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #68 on: May 31, 2018, 03:05:48 PM »
A small note on the 'black sun' photo: as well as the black part being the moon - since it's a solar eclipse - it's actually "a highly processed composite of four images that's intended to be a more artistic representation of what the eclipse felt like", according to Bruenjes.

Also, I thought all Siegmeister's stuff was fiction?

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #69 on: May 31, 2018, 03:31:58 PM »
To the doubters: this is a real image, I was really there and that's what it really looked like. Interestingly, people who have never seen a total solar eclipse think it's fake, while people who HAVE seen a total eclipse (particularly those with me in Antarctica) think I got the image exactly right!

F. Bruenjes



F. Bruenjes: I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful."

The essential features of the photographs were NOT changed: the size of the Black Sun, and of course, the distance to this heavenly body, which does cause the solar eclipse.







These photographs invalidate immediately the fairy tale invented Nasa: no 4,800 km diameter for the Moon, no 384,000 km distance from Earth to the Moon.





The Allais effect proves that the Moon could not possibly cause the solar eclipse:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


I thought it curious you'd link to Bernard's (Siegmeister's) 1964 work for support.

HE proves that the North Pole has never been discovered and offers a direct estimate of the area involved.


Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #70 on: May 31, 2018, 04:01:08 PM »
This is compelling stuff.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #71 on: May 31, 2018, 06:03:14 PM »
OK he is entirely serious.

I told you...

If you have nothing to add to the thread beyond musing about sandokhan's posts, then I will ask you to refrain from derailing the thread. Take it to CN. Warnings for both.

EDIT - Turns out both of you are sitting on three warnings already. So why don't you both take a few days off to review the rules.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 06:05:12 PM by junker »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #72 on: May 31, 2018, 06:05:03 PM »

I thought it curious you'd link to Bernard's (Siegmeister's) 1964 work for support.

HE proves that the North Pole has never been discovered and offers a direct estimate of the area involved.
You can call it "proves." I wouldn't.

But whatever you call it, it's based on a spherical model of earth with openings into the interior of that sphere at the poles. If that can't be integrated with a flat earth model, I don't get why you'd accept HE claims as "proof."

Max_Almond

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #73 on: May 31, 2018, 07:02:49 PM »
Re: 'black sun' - if the photographer himself calls it a "highly processed composite of four images" who am I to argue?

The others he says are unaltered, though.

Nothing about them contradicts a 93 million mile distant sun.

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #74 on: May 31, 2018, 07:17:28 PM »
Re: 'black sun' - if the photographer himself calls it a "highly processed composite of four images" who am I to argue?

I have also posted the UNALTERED IMAGE:



Here is how the final image was achieved:

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite_photo.html





F. Bruenjes: I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful."

These photographs feature an UNKNOWN heavenly body, which could not possible be the Moon, in the shape of a disk. No 384,000 distance to the Moon in these photographs.

The Allais effect proves that the Moon could not possibly cause the solar eclipse:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

The discoidal shape of the Sun:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

Since the Sun must have the shape of a disk, the celestial body which causes the solar eclipse must also have a similar shape.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #75 on: May 31, 2018, 09:17:24 PM »



These photographs feature an UNKNOWN heavenly body, which could not possible be the Moon, in the shape of a disk. No 384,000 distance to the Moon in these photographs.

Why could the eclipsing body not be the moon?


The Allais effect proves that the Moon could not possibly cause the solar eclipse.

And yet...

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #76 on: June 01, 2018, 10:58:32 AM »
And yet...

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEplot/SEplot2001/SE2003Nov23T.GIF


A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics

Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.

We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.



Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?”


Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."


This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.

Max_Almond

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #77 on: June 01, 2018, 01:16:39 PM »
You can take a photo of the "unknown heavenly body" that eclipses the sun.

Weirdly enough, it looks exactly like the moon:



Are you a Hare Krishna? Some of them think it's 'Rahu' that causes the eclipse.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 01:32:25 PM by Max_Almond »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #78 on: June 01, 2018, 01:16:57 PM »
The mechanism for the anomaly is in question, but that doesn't mean the moon isn't eclipsing the sun. It still is/does. The reason for the Effect is unknown; but not the celestial bodies.

Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« Reply #79 on: June 01, 2018, 02:12:20 PM »
All of the photographs which include the actual features of the Moon (Earth light), during a total solar eclipse, are fake/heavily photoshopped (superimposition of the Moon on top of the total solar eclipse image).

Such as this one:

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/upload_2017-8-22_12-8-34-png.28426/

https://i.redd.it/4btg9peappiz.jpg (original photograph which features the Black Sun)

(https://www.google.ro/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=626&ei=zMUTXN6ZMMSalwSk0qroCQ&q=dennis+sprinkle+solar+eclipse&oq=dennis+sprinkle+solar+eclipse&gs_l=img.3...448.5790..6304...2.0..0.137.2934.21j10......0....1..gws-wiz-img.....0..0j0i8i30j0i30j0i24.c4Nf_UmAENg )

Before the author of the krishna.org started his observations, for over a hundred years, there were NO photographs featuring the moon during a total solar eclipse, always totally dark.

"For 100 years people have been taking photos of the eclipse with film and no one has ever been able to show the face of the moon, now, with the aid of photoshop and superimposing photos on the moon over the eclipse, it has become possible.

You know these are days of photoshop and people will do anything to get an award winning photograph. It should look like this and any thoughtful person knows it should look like this so the temptation may be there to use photoshop to make it look like this… But we also know of course that it does not look like this… There are millions of photos of solar eclipses where the sun is completely blacked out during a solar eclipse. Obviously the moon should be clearly visible during a solar eclipse to the naked eye. The earthshine is very bright on the moon at that time because on the moon it is the ‘full earth’ at that moment except for the small black circle of the eclipse on the earth…"

https://krishna.org/astronomy-debunked-solar-eclipses-are-not-caused-by-the-moon/#comment-269028


I was the first to bring the information about Rahu (Fenrir) and Ketu to the FES.


The reason for the Effect is unknown; but not the celestial bodies.

No.

The calculations were done by the Nobel prize winner Dr. Maurice Allais:



Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.


In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


We know for sure the identity of two of the heavenly bodies which take part in a total solar eclipse: the Earth and the Sun.

The calculations done by Dr. Allais show that the third body cannot be the Moon: the amplitudes are TWENTY MILLION TIMES LARGER THAN the luni-solar component for the anisotropic support, and ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES larger than the luni-solar component for the isotropic support.


This is how we know that the Earth shine total solar eclipses photos were faked.


For example, for the 2008 total solar eclipse:

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL INFLUENCE WAS AT WORK.

This is the influence of the BLACK SUN passing in front of the visible Sun.



More calculations done by Dr. Saxl:

Published in the Physical Review Journal (1970)

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).



Here is the final proof that it is the Black Sun during the total solar eclipse: the red spectral lines of Newtonium, the first element in Mendeleev's periodic table of elements:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2064764#msg2064764

« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 03:05:59 PM by sandokhan »