How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« on: November 19, 2015, 08:18:10 AM »
If the Earth is flat, could you please explain a Brocken Spectre?

It occurs when the Sun is low enough to cast the shadow of tall objects upwards. This seems to be impossible on a flat Earth, as it would require the source of light (Sun) to hover lower than the height of an object. The Sun disappearing over the horizon according to the flat Earth model doesn't explain this, as the Sun would still sit higher in the sky than the height of said object.

Example:


Inb4 claims of CGI.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2015, 08:07:12 PM »
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2015, 10:28:37 PM »

Hmm.. that's not what a brocken spectre is!

See https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/cloud-tags/glory/#p=1&t=cloud107&i=0

Yes it is. This is just an example of Brocken Spectre. The normal sightings you'll normally find reported are people seeing their own shadows surrounded by a rainbow.

"A Brocken spectre (German Brockengespenst), also called Brocken bow or mountain spectre, is the apparently enormous and magnified shadow of an observer, cast upon the upper surfaces of clouds opposite the sun."

In this case, the mountain is the "observer". In any case, it doesn't really matter what you want to call it. What the image displays still shouldn't be possible on a flat Earth.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Pongo

  • Most Educated Flat-Earther
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2015, 03:37:47 AM »
In that pic the light from the sun is bouncing off the flat earth and lighting the Pacific Northwestern mountain from below.

Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2015, 08:26:20 AM »
If that were the case, the shadow wouldn't be this dominating, since the angle of the bounced light that do not hit the mountain from below would illuminate the part of the clouds where the shadow is cast.

Reflected light isn't an option. In fact, reflected light is the reason the shadow isn't completely black.

Any other explanations?
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2015, 12:53:47 PM »
It's quite hard to tell with a single low-res picture and no actual measurements to accompany it (we can keep shouting "no u!" at each other regarding the angles, but it's all largely meaningless, as I'm sure you know given the complete lack of substantiation of your position), but this would have most likely been caused by electromagnetic acceleration. Reflected light would, of course, be a significant factor too.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2015, 02:57:05 PM »
Is this assuming that electromagnetism can bend light even though photons are massless and not charged?

Is there any studies or experiments conducted that show that A) Electromagnetism can bend light which is known to be impossible or B) That photons are a hoax?
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2015, 05:00:57 PM »
Radiation is comprised of bosons (the actual photons), which do have mass.

Ether physics solves the wave/particle duality once and for all: bosons flow through subquarks strings (that is, longitudinal waves propagate through transversal waves).

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Quantum%20Theory%20/%20Particle%20Physics/Download/673

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/History/forgotten.htm

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.562.5340&rep=rep1&type=pdf

« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 05:16:42 PM by sandokhan »

Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2015, 05:53:23 PM »
But those proposals were the works of Tesla using the ideas of 19th century physics.

The Michelson-Morley experiment refused this (an experiment often cited by FE models) and special relativity has been validated through experiments over and over again since then.

By mid-20th century, if not earlier, it was definite that it was completely wrong.

My question still stands unanswered. Can someone explain how the above phenomena is possible on a flat earth?

PS: Click the image. It's not low res.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 06:10:40 PM by andruszkow »
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2015, 06:09:19 PM »
Additionally, isn't the zetetic approach ment to explain things as simple as possible based on observations (as an example)?

The simple explanation for that image is that the source of light is shining on the mountain from below. Adding the refused 19th century theories of ether physics is a very complex attempt.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2015, 07:00:21 PM »
My question still stands unanswered. Can someone explain how the above phenomena is possible on a flat earth?

It is very possible when using the CORRECT flat earth model: the sun does rise and set.

The Faq is using an outdated description, which has been debunked many, many times before.


What did you say?

The Michelson-Morley experiment refused this (an experiment often cited by FE models) and special relativity has been validated through experiments over and over again since then.

You need to go beyond your vickypedia level of physics.

Let me help you.

Total debunking of the failed theory of relativity:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2715.msg80203#msg80203


In particular...

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20101128012239/http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)


You seem to be very concerned about the effect of the light originating from the Sun upon the atmosphere.

Of course, you know what this means: the Tunguska event.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 08:32:02 PM by sandokhan »

Saddam Hussein

Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2015, 07:34:41 PM »
Do not tempt me to bring here the entire Tunguska file, the fact the that the explosion which occurred on June 30, 1908, at that location, was seen all the way from London, with a curvature of over 4000 km to count, it was seen from every major capital of Europe also...

Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2015, 07:53:32 PM »
I didn't reference the FAQ.

Here's the deal. Your militant defence of FE combined with ad hominem attacks concern me. The truth is supposed to be for the greather good, for all. Yet, you insist on belittling every notion of scepticism, while essay'ing your responses utilizing 1850-esk science, and linking to wildly suspicious reports hosted on archived sites like Geocities. Any attempt at finding new sources for these works sends me to sites like abovetopsecret.com and esotericscience.com, displaying the same refuted content over and over again.

Now, let's assume that I have an understanding that equals to what you call a "vickypedia" level of physics (notice how I do not claim genius): Your job, as a theorising organ, is to properly explain the fallacies of todays so-called common knowledge, but be transparent about facts, regardless. However, you seem to, again, belittle every notion of scepticism, utter implicit insults, while claiming genius, mostly based on reports that fails peer-review. Basing your explanations on abstracts does not help.

How did the Tunguska event ever become mentionable in this particular regard?

Speaking of which, what did actually explode above Tjeljabinsk in February 2013?

Bonus question for you: Can I assume, that according to you, everything I'm taught in my current course in Orbital Mechanics is wrong?

For all the others: Does someone else want to give me a proper, viable, informed answer, without utilizing refuted scientific measures from the 1800's?
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2015, 08:25:55 PM »
At Chelyabinsk we have the following situation: the US trying to get back at the Russians using Tesla weapons. But the Russians are way ahead in the field, as they have been ever since the early sixties.

The best work done on ether magnetism was performed in the nineteenth century: J.C. Maxwell's original set of ether equations, Tesla's theory of dynamic ether, J.W. Keely's work on cymatics and much more.




JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.


A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.



Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.

375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above

I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).




The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

UFOs/Jet aircrafts/V2 rockets were invented by the Vril society, only after 1936.


Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.



A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.50 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.



The telluric currents/ether/subquark-magnetic monopoles strings transmitted the energy input from the Tesla ball lightning spheres which exploded over Siberia (Tunguska):  this is how the bright luminescence in the night skies of Europe and Central Asia was created.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Tunguska file:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1535846#msg1535846 (no comet, meteorite, or asteroid)


Tesla - Tunguska:

http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

Geo-magnetic disturbances were already observed even before the explosion!!

Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.


Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 07:11:13 AM by sandokhan »

Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2015, 10:28:45 PM »
You're obviously a troll. I wont feed you.


To every one else:

So no one can answer that question. Is it fair to speculate, that there's a teeny tiny possibility that the earth is actually a sphere?
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Shane

  • *
  • Posts: 2979
  • If you will it, it is no dream
    • View Profile
Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2015, 07:51:33 AM »

Is it fair to speculate, that there's a teeny tiny possibility that the earth is actually a sphere?


Sure it is. It is fair to speculate there is a teeny tiny chance for anything.
Quote from: Rushy
How do you know you weren't literally given metaphorical wings?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2015, 02:15:48 PM »
So no one can answer that question.
No, you simply dislike the answers you received. You seem to think that an unsubstantiated one-liner counts as disproof, and you're welcome to think so, but that doesn't change much.

Is it fair to speculate, that there's a teeny tiny possibility that the earth is actually a sphere?
Yes, that's the very point of scepticism. Unlike the RE'ers who visit here to act all high and mighty, most of us are happy to entertain alternatives to their beliefs.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: How is Brocken Spectre possible on FE?
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2015, 12:13:54 AM »
The simple explanation for that image is that the source of light is shining on the mountain from below.
That could be happening.  The focus of the sun could be lower than the clouds and the moutain. 

Also, light does not always travel in straight lines. 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8