Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - anounceofsaltperday

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
Flat Earth Community / Re: The sea, and the moon, and me.
« on: October 16, 2014, 08:14:04 PM »
i am more accepting of the Gnostic view myself Tintagel... the earth is an astonishing creation, but one that only hints of the staggering, but not infinite, beauty from which it is separated.

I am intrigued by your view that the earth is infinite as I have not come across this view before.  Mayhap you will expand on your thoughts por moi?

Flat Earth Community / Re: The sea, and the moon, and me.
« on: October 16, 2014, 06:54:09 PM »
nice posting Tintagel

so here is a humble pie apology to Markjo.  GREAT pickup on the the Dubai to Seattle flight.   

Does anyone know if there are any pics of the North pole area taken from that flight?  I would relish seeing them.

perfect example Markjo... i am going to do that flight

go bite yourself... i am not going to eff around doing something you can do on google earth

Well there are two obvious flights that just don't happen... Oslo to Vancouver, Stockholm to Vancouver.

Oslo to Vancouver is 4,500 miles and should take less than 8 hours.  Actual flying time is over 12 hours PLUS one stop!  The Stockholm flight is 12hrs 30mins PLUS one stop.

Helsinki to Vancouver is 4,683 miles and should be an easy 8 1/2 hours...  Actual flying time 12 hours 20 mins PLUS one stop.

What about Copenhagan to Honalulu?  7,100 miles.. another easy 12 1/2 hours flying time ... ACTUAL flying time is 21 hour and 11 minutes....

Lets face it globalists Markjo and Ramaset, you have once again stood in, smelled, touched and tasted your own BS once again...

i am not buying it Sadman... so far he has CLEARLY demonstrated nothing but contempt for FES thinking.  Why would a professed globalist spend the huge amount of time on this site that Markjo does when he simply gainsays everything that is put to him.    No explanations, just a brick wall bully... "show me a map...or I will ... bla bla..."

Why are you disrupting this site Markjo?    What are you gaining from this? 

Why are you always misleading people in every single topic?  I have called you out time and time again... and you provide not one single explanation.

I have plenty more to come Markjo... and you will be outed .. : )

Hey Markjo.. you are the one that put the route map up.  Air NZ flies Christchurch to Santiago as per your pic.  Why do you need me to use Google Earth for you to mark out the Sydney to J'burg flight?  You do have a pewter... or you wouldn't be here... what gives with you? You are a sim.

You are on the FES site and you say BS things like "show me the UN Map"... you are a sim.... you HAUNT this site... if you were real and not the latest sim occupying the chair you could draw the UN Map on a napkin blindfolded.  Sim. Sim. Sim.

And ... I just checked again... still no polar flights... 

You need to get your boss to sim some data for polar flights..

Hey Markjo, the Christchurch - Santiago flight is the perfect example of the BS.

Standard flight time is over 14 hours.  The great circle distance is 5,823 miles, while the 747 has a typical cruise speed of 567mph... so the flight time should be less than 11 hours.  Also, the winds should favour a faster flight, as the do from Perth to Melbourne, which I have had the pleasure of doing in 2 hrs 35 mins, total dist 1690 miles.  So it is quite possible that the Ch-Sant flight could be over in 9 hours.

Mind you, the flight time of over 14 hours is consistent with the UN Map.

Sydney to J'burg is 6870 miles and should take around 12 hours by GCN.  And guess what the standard flight time is.... 14 hours 25 mins... once again consistent with the UN Map...

oh.... still no flights over the arctic or antarctic today...

oh... and I just checked again.. still NO flights over either the arctic or the antarctic...gee, I am surprised...

what are you guys doing in FES?  you are gatekeepers.. controlling debate with your BS.

We all know the BS, we have it fed to us morning, noon and night.

There are many, many, many reasons why commercial planes should overfly the poles if the world was actually as claimed by the globalists.

In reality, if the world was a globe, then the flight paths would not be confined to the corridors that they are so unambiguously contained within.  People would fly directly from Melbourne to Nairobi instead of stopping in Bangkok, passing over India exactly as depicted in the UN Flag.  There is simply NO reason that modern aircraft need to make any special allowances for antarctic or arctic overflight.

You are once again, as with every thread, showing yourselves to be sims which are operated around the clock simply to throttle sensible discourse on alternative explanations.

and yet... STILL no commercial flights over either pole. 

Christchurch to capetown....

Melbourne to Capetown...

People would FLOCK to those flights... if only to fly over the pole

both of these flights less than 6000 Nautical miles... 12 hours flying time

that is HILARIOUS simulated apologist for the globalists.  As if ANY commercial or military plane has dropped altitude to unfreeze its fuel while cruising at 11,000m altitude.

Or any other moment for that matter,103.44/2

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.
« on: September 26, 2014, 08:17:46 PM »
Gulliver, relativistic arguments that are said to "prove" relativity are snuffed out once the Aether is proven to exist.  The Sagnac experiment clearly demonstrates the Aether exists.  The results of the experiment are EXACTLY as Sagnac calculated.  The split light beams experience drag and change the fringe patterns, an effect which is used for the gyroscopic compass in aircraft.  Without Aether, this effect could not be observed.  If there is no Aether, then the fringe patterns would not alter and gyroscopes could not work.  There is NO relativistic explanation of this effect.  Please DO NOT bother with the Wikipedia entry on this, the inertial reference frame at any velocity still does not explain this. 

Markjo... Luka Popov "The dynamical description of the geocentric Universe" 26th April 2013. Abstract: Using Mach's principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual motion of the EArth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual revolution of the Universe around the fixed and catered Earth.  This can be performed by postulating the existence of vector a scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars.

And finally Rama, the MM experiment did not then and does not now yield a NULL result.  It yields a result between 1 and 10 km/sec CONSISTENT with the 24hr rotation of the Aether.  This was CONFIRMED with the Michaelson Gale experiment.

So, let's summarise the discussion to date.

CGI rendering do not prove that a pic of a man in a comical film prop was actually taken on the putative moon.
The physics of this putative moon landing on this putative moon is entirely inconsistent within it's own self defined conditions
The Aether is proven to exist
The Aether is proven to rotate around the earth every 24 hours
The Earth is proven to be stationary
The application of Mach's principle provides a completely satisfactory account of a geocentric universe as demonstrated by Barbour, Popov and others

Thanks for coming everyone.  I am still seeking a globalist to do a radio talk with me on the geocentric flat earth.  What about you Rama-set?  You are giving me the impression that you think that you will be able to pull my arguments apart easily.  You will be able to educate many people and alert them to all the kerazy thinking people such as me have.

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.
« on: September 25, 2014, 10:51:58 PM »
of course Machs principle... the arithmetic holds ups perfectly and it doesn't require faith, unlike relativity... which doesn't apply in such and such a circumstance but does apply bla bla bla.

Many geocentrists can't quite bring themselves to fight two battles at one time.  The evidence for a motionless earth and a rotating Aether does not depend upon the shape of the earth.

And how is it that you know so much about these things Markjo?  And why, if you believe the earth is a globe in relativistic universe, are you haunting the corridors of the Flat Earth Society? 

And the same question of you Gulliver.. why do you choose to tell me (and presumably others) where they can put information and in which thread and generally act as a gatekeeper?

I ask simply to understand the dynamics of the tfes... are you one of the instigators and or controllers herein?  What is your power?

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.
« on: September 25, 2014, 09:14:00 PM »
Markjo, the Foucault experiment is better explained by Barbour J. and Bertotti B. "Gravity and Intertia in a Machian Framework" Il Nouovo Cimento 32(B):1-27, 11 March 1977 and also Gerardus Bouw's "Geocentric Papers".  The earth is stationary.

Gulliver, SR doesn't apply where significant gravity exists and it is bogus. It's creation came about entirely to demolish the Aether.  But the Aether is now marching boldly back into physics Gulliver.  Soon all of you will fear and tremble at its majestic return.  The top physicists of the time walked out on Einsteins lectures as they were considered to be rubbish.  At first Einstein claimed he had never even heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment and then later recanted.  How disingenuous is that?

A stationary earth fits all of the data without flim flam.  Your house of cards is now collapsing.

As I noted earlier, it was not I that brought this thread here.

I simply stated that CGI renderings do not prove that a photo purporting to be a man on the moon is genuine.

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.
« on: September 25, 2014, 10:26:40 AM »
yes Rama.... your worst nightmare... someone familiar with physics...I obtained my BSc from the University of Melbourne in 1979 with a physics major.  I then read Engineering and obtained BEng and later an MBA... so please don't expect me to be phased by ad hominem attacks such as "what makes you such and expert in physics" and all the attempts to paint me as a "know it all".  I claim no expertise, but I do claim the capability to understand sound reasoning in matters of physics and engineering when I hear it or read it.  I would speculate that you may find discussions with me a pleasant change compared to persons that obtain their knowledge of these matters directly from the doubly entendred “Big Bang Theory television series..  As a very special favour to you, I shall present some very, very sound reasoning for you to cogitate on, adapted from Malcolm Bowden.  As I did with Model29, I welcome you to the real world, now becoming heavily populated!

The Michelson Morley Experiment was expected to demonstrate that earth moved through the Aether at 30km/s because, after all, wasn't this the speed of the earth around the sun in the direction of travel?  It was very, very awkward when the results were between 1 and 10 km/s wasn't it? In a desperate attempt to explain this RATHER embarrassing result, the Fitzgerald-Lorenz contraction was invented, with absolutely no justification provided for this “solution”.  This solution was only invented to overcome the idea that the earth was stationary in the Aether.  To complete this travesty, the Einstein myth and “Special Relativity” were invented to “abolish” the Aether.  Einstein's biographer commented: “The problem that now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives.  The first was that the earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable (???).  The second was that the Aether was carried along by the earth in its passage through space, a possibility which had already been ruled out... by a number of experiments, notably those of... James Bradley.  The third solution was that the Aether simply did not exist, which to many nineteenth century scienties was equivalent to scrapping current views of light, electricity and magnetism and starting again.” Ronald Clark, 1971

In fact, the first possibility is the only one that fits all of the results of the experiments carried out... i.e. the earth is stationary in a rotating Aether.  Einstein's relativity theory was supposedly verified by the Transit of Venus experiment, the results of which were HOPELESS and would not possibly stand scrutiny today.

The Michelson Gale Experiment demonstrated that the Aether was passing across the surface of the earth once every twenty four hours. However, it was unclear if the earth was moving or the Aether.

The Airy experiment proved that water filled telescopes did not have to be tilted more than air filled telescopes because the moving starlight was carried by a rotating Aether that was passing across a stationary earth.  If the earth was moving, then the water filled telescope would need more tilt.

Finally, the Sagnac experiment proving that there IS an Aether.  He split a beam of light and sent the two beams in opposite directions around a path, recombined the beams, and noted their interference fringes. The whole system was on a turntable anhe then turned it at 2 revolutions per second, remeasured the fringes and found they had changed.  This was due to the movement of the mirrors, which made the parth for one beam longer and the other shorter.  This proved that the Aether existed because once the light left the source, its speed was controlled by the comparatively stationary Aether in the laboratory.  THIS DEMOLISHED THE THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >