Sunday, April 23, 2017

Sailing around the world in 74-109 days at 24 knots is possible on a flat earth


Flat earth map

In this figure you see the shortest path for sailing around the world on a flat plane:
A = 25E-45W, 60-22,5-50 South
B = 45W-75W, 50-70 South
C = 75W-150E, 70S-30N-60S
D = 150E-115E, 60S
E = 115E-25E, 60S-0S-60S

Average latitude

lat-av-A = (55+22.5)/2=38,75 = 128,75
lat-av-B = 60 = 150
lat-av-C = (155+60)/2 = 107,5
lat-av-D = 60 = 150
lat-av-E = (60+0)/2 = 30 = 120

Average radius (lat+90)

rad-av-A = 2*pi*6371*(128,75/360) = 14.316 km
rad-av-B,D = 2*pi*6371*(150/360) = 16.679 km
rad-av-C = 2*pi*6371*(107,5/360) = 11.953 km
rad-av-E = 2*pi*6371*(120/360) = 13.343 km

Approximate distance

dist-A = 2*pi*14.316*(25+45)/360 = 17.490 km
dist-B = 2*pi*16.679*(75-45)/360 = 8.733 km
dist-C = 2*pi*11.953*(180-150+75)/360 = 21.905 km
dist-D = 2*pi*16.679*(150-115)/360 = 10.188 km
dist-E =  2*pi*13.343*(115-25)/360 = 20.959 km

Total distance = 79.275 km = 42.805 seamiles

As they can sail around the world in 109-74 days they would sail at an average of 24 knots. This is very possible as for-instance the Groupama 3 has an average of 33 knots per hour. Or ABN AMRO TWO at 23 knots per hour.

Fore-going calculation is an approximation as we don't know what the real shape of the earth is and as we don't know what the correct map of the supposed flat earth looks like.

Source on speed: http://yachtpals.com/fastest-sailboats-2079
Original map source: http://www.hayatinanlaminedir.com/flatearth-grubundan-net-aciklama-dunya-yuvarlak-degil-duzdur/, https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/avr/avatar_1460116_1463417280.png

Friday, April 21, 2017

Light-source comes up within the clouds, suggesting nearby Sun


They tell us that the Sun is approximately 150 million km away and that from that distance it gives us daylight and warmth. The following photo is take from the site of The Australian Weathercam Network on 22 april 2017 at Wa Perth, Jandakot Airport (kijkend naar Noord-Oosten). http://www.weathercamnetwork.com.au The footage on the site is only kept for 7 days, as each new day replaces the old footage of 7 days ago.

Clouds and the position of the Sun

So why is this photo so very interesting. It all has to do with what side of the clouds is very bright and which side is dark. Normally when the Sun is far away and the clouds are relatively very close, only the back side of those clouds are bright. From our point of view the clouds should look dark. But that isn't what we observe. In this photo you see dark clouds and very bright clouds together, on a relative close proximity. The very bright clouds we see from our point of view are lightened from a light-source in front of those clouds and the dark clouds are lightened from behind. This means/ suggests that the light-source must be within the clouds itself.

Implications

It is impossible for the Sun at 150 million km to give this effect on the clouds, so the Sun or this light-source is much much closer. Earlier I did calculate that on a flat earth the Sun must be at a distance of approximately 6200 km. But the clouds that we see are most definitely not at that height, so the Sun would be even much closer to us. So if this is the case then the shape of the earth might not be flat also, but more-likely some kind of concave shape. Some time ago I tried to do some maths on this one, but have been unable to come up with a good mathematical solution. So for now for me the shape of things is still under discussion. And for now I cannot explain this photo, as it suggests that the light-source might be only a few km above the surface. If this is the case then one light-source hasn't the capability for giving light for almost halve the earth. Or they use several Sun simulators or we might live in some kind of projection (holographic or maybe projected in our minds). So the question remains, do we live on a flat earth or do we live in some kind of projection. Foregoing photo gives more questions then answers in this respect.

Monday, April 10, 2017

What is wrong with the stretched sun?



This photo is taken by a close friend of me and I personally find it very very interesting. Not of the long straight line at sea-level or the very flat horizon, but it is because of the sun. The sky is clear, you see an aircraft pass-by with a real void air-plain streak and not some chem-trails. So a real clear sky! But the most important thing you see is the sun. Normally when you see the sun, it should be round. But in this photo it doesn't has this shape. When you look at the water-level it shows us that it is no-time-laps-photo and the camera hasn't moved. What is causing this shape of the sun and what might be an explanation for this?

Explaining the stretched sun!

Very important thing you see in the sun, is that it looks stretched. From the left-under side to the upper right-side the distance is bigger, then from the left-above side to the lower right-side. This means there is some kind of distortion or there is some-kind of object interfering or simply entering here. There are two big bright bursts of sun-light at the top and the bottom of the sun, with a small degree in its axis.

Are there two suns?

At the sides you see some light exiting the sun. I like to point out the 1 left high and the 1 right low position. Next to that the 2 left low and the 2 right high position. In the last photo all lines cross at a centre-point. So or this sun is stretched or there might be 2 light-sources. As we have been taught that the sun is round than what we see can only be explained with 2 suns or an object entering our realm. If you connect the dots there seems to be an object in-front our sun which results in light distortion, or there is another sun coming into our system. You judge for yourself!

Additional proof Sky Cam Hong Kong

Skycam shows us what is going on in the sky and from time to time it looks very strange. For instance this video is taken from www.allskycam.com at Hong Kong of 19 april 2017. In the video it looks like the sun is flickering or moving around. If you put circles around the bright sun-area you can conclude that you cannot complete it with one circle. Two are needed, which means that there is something going on with the sun. It supports the fore-mentioned statement about the stretched sun. 

video









Additional proof Australia Jandakot Airport

Here is some additional proof of the Sun in Australia at Jandakot Airport looking to the North-East. In this case I have also inverted the colours, so in the black you can see clearly that the Sun has not a normal circular shape. This is of the date 24 april 2017.





Source photo: S. Zijlstra 9 april 2017, Akkrum, Netherlands.

More interesting information on the sun: what is the distance to the sun at the horizon?

Monday, April 3, 2017

Space-shuttle flight with entering outer-space lower then its highest point

Be my guest and analyse this video. It shows speed, altitude and range of the space-shuttle. Interestingly the most important fact of this video isn't that it reaches 356.704 ft aka 108,72 km (at 6:32 min) but that the signs of going into outer-space (yellow coloration (friction fire) (at 9:03)), signal disturbance  (at 8:28) to occur after this point at a lower altitude 337.582 ft aka 102,89 km . At 9:29 they tell us that we have gone into outer-space at 344.227 ft aka 104,92 km. So how come these signs don't appear earlier as the space-shuttle gets to a higher point.


No outer-space

Answer: they don't go into outer-space as there is a ceiling at around 73 miles height aka 117 km. They have to correct their height as they probably get to close to it, but the signs like a signal disturbance and the friction coloration's have not occurred yet. This 6 km difference in height doesn't make sense unless they cannot go into outer-space and so have to fake the whole thing. The signal disturbance is the point after which they edit what you see.


More reading: Fake moon CGI

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Moon-like object in orbit which isn't the moon

These days we hear and see a lot of strange news on the television or through internet. So now I would like you to see this simple observation of mine. I went to allskycam.com and went to the cam of Post Observatory in Trenton Maine in the USA. I did see a time-laps from 20.19 till 21.09 (setting-time of the observed object). So at first I did think it was the moon, but when I compare the normal periods of the moon, then the obviously big object cannot be the moon. First of all the moon is only 12,4% visible aka a waxing crescent. This actually would mean it should almost be gone and that doesn't add up with the visible moon-like object. That object is clearly round and shines round (no crescent). Next to that it is very bright and that doesn't fit with a waxing crescent.

Data on moon

From the site https://www.timeanddate.com/ you can find information on rise and set times of the sun and the moon. First of all on 30 march 2017 the moon has a waxing crescent of 12,4% (this is based on Portland Maine). It shows clearly that the set time of the moon should be 22:17, but as stated this object set at approximately 21:09. That is at least an hour difference. The moon should follow this object, as this object sets first. In the photo above the crescent isn't visible, maybe due to the great light-source of the unknown moon-like object. We can see also that the sun set at 19:05 so the bright object isn't the sun. Given the fact that a waxing crescent isn't a bright round light-source as shown in the photo and given the fact that it sets on a wrong time-frame, then we must conclude that the shown object isn't the moon. You judge for yourself, but I think we should look more above our heads trying to find out what they are hiding behind the fake geo-engineered "chemtrail" clouds.


Additional proof regarding additional object

From www.allskycam.com in Chili Santiago of 19 april 2017 I made this short video showing an object. It gets brighter as well. It looks like there is also a small object orbiting that object. When it goes in-front of it, the large object brightens. In one shot you can see the small object at the east side of it (big object less bright).

video





More reading Fake moon footage bad cgi

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Fake moon footage, bad CGI

NASA tells us what to believe what lies from 100 km heigh and on. The Universe is expanding, has many exoplanets and that might be a home for extraterrestials. But what is NASA showing us exactly. In the below footage it looks like very bad CGI!

Incredible Lunar Views From The Japanese SELENE Orbiter - Earthrise

We believe what we see. And almost everything we see, we see on the telly or through wireless internet. They tell that there is a lunar orbiting the moon, which results in the following youtube video (it is a loop-video of course). Very interesting you would say. In my opinion it looks like "cra.". I have seen much better CGI's from NASA which also look very very fake. Sorry for my language.

Problem with round craters

As I stated in an earlier blogpost, there is something wrong with the creation of craters on the earth. In big chunks of ice falling from the sky I mentioned that craters on earth might be caused by very big chunks of ice falling from the firmament. This of course is still guessing aka a theory, but there might be something there. The point of that is that on a motionless plane big chunks of ice can only create perfect round holes, as the drop at a ninety degree angle on the earth. If the earth was spinning, that angle would be different for sure. So why the perfect round craters on the moon? The footage looks very fake to me, but especially the round craters are especially unreal.

Why fake it?

Or we live on a globe orbiting the Sun which in itself orbits a galaxy which also spins through endless space, or we live on a flat plane and we are the centre of our universe. So why fake it? What if they want to lie to us about God, the bible and especially the bad counterpart of that. What if the earth is like an orb, split in halve by the earth plane. We live in the "bad" part and the other halve actually would be the "good" part. Just like Jing and Jang. If they are on the bad side also, they would fake it, and tell us that we are not special and a part of some gigantic unimaginable universe.
PS. for everyone who reads this, this is just a theory but can be true also. But what we really are sure about is that this footage of a lunar rotating around the moon is absolute CGI aka fake.


Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Excellent proof of a flat earth (with video)

The following video posted on Youtube by someone called Ekeresco Jack dated 1 March 2017 I think is an excellent example on proving a flat earth. In this he compares six high-points of mountains located 77,4 km up to 120 km away. The tops also vary with height. Of this he made 2 reference models.

Models

The tops of 6 mountains are projected from our line of sight for 120 km away. Doing this one on one results in the flat earth model. For the globe model he needs to deduct the height of the curvature also. When doing some of the lines change position and some actually swap places in reference to the flat earth model. Both models he projected on the photo.

Check on used heights

Using the site of koordinates.com I did check if in this area the heights are corresponding with what is shown in the video. As you can see in the results that the maximum in this area is 2300 m (at about 124 km from Wellington), which corresponds with the 2360 m at 120 km. This also confirms that the used data in the video is reliable.

Some figures corresponding to video

In this table the above part is the distance combined with height on a flat plane, with our line of view projected at 120 km. The second part is the correction for the curvature. As you can see the projected height of light blue and yellow do swap places, as stated in the video. And obviously the total visible height on a flat plane is bigger than on a globe. This is consistent with what is stated in the video, suggesting a valid way of determining it. As the figures of the flat earth line up with the photo and the figures of the globe don't line up, then it must mean that the earth is flat.

Conclusion

So from the top-point he extended the lines so from our line of sight projected 120 km away and compared them with what he actually sees on the photo. For the flat earth model these lines correspond with the photo, but for the globe model they don't match and there would be less to see also. This video is a must see for everyone who still has doubts regarding a globe or a flat earth. Edit 22-3-2017: This video disproves that the earth doesn't have a radius of 6371 km, but shows that it is much more flat. It suggests a flat earth, but there might also be some kind of curvature.


Friday, March 3, 2017

Black dot in the Sun at Antarctica, is it a Sun simulator?

Two months a year the Sun at the south-pole goes right over the horizon and it will be registered by the Earth System Research Laboratory's camera. Their time-lapse video of March 2013 is very interesting, as a black dot or eye in the sun is registered. Other days and years the camera is never pointed at the sun, as they probably don't want us to know what is out there. If you zoom in on that dot structures get visible, which normally shouldn't be visible. What can this be, can it be a Sun simulator and if so, why would they do it?

Photo from South-pole station Antarctica

At the South-pole in March and October the sun will be going over the horizon, of which you can see movies at the website of Earth System Research Laboratory. Per month you can find a time-laps movie (probably automatically made), so that everybody can judge how it looks. Of the available online material is "March 2013" very interesting. It is the only evidence available from the South-pole in which you can see a black dot. The following screenshots have been taken from the Earth System Research Laboratory, regarding the time-lapse movie of March 2013. Specifically it is of 03-03-2013 at time-lapse time 0.13/1.13.




500-times Enlarged

For the following photo's I have used an enlargement of 500-times so we are able to see the black dot or black eye in the Sun. This also means that the resulting dot isn't very sharp, but interestingly there are structures or lines within the dot recognisable. The photo's look like a purple cross, a cube, an eye and a black cross. In this the question would be, what are we seeing here. It is not over-lighted as some might suggest, as the dot is visible in every shot.

Other evidence

On the ship called Aurora of the Australian Antarctic Division: Leading Australia's Antarctic Program they register also with a time-lapse what is going on. On the site of the Aurora you can see (with good weather of course) the same black dot. If you enlarge this it is almost black with some unclear structures which can be seen. The second photo is from Casey Station with also a black dot. The third is from Macquarie Island Station also with the same result. Next to this there is a short movie which is speculating suggests a real rotating object. The Nasa Sun Simulator caught
on camera, especially from 4.30 min till 5.00 min are interesting. In this footage you also see that the black dot actually has the purple colour, as stated earlier. In addition I like to add the comment that there is a patent on this device dated 8 March 1966 number US.3239660.

Why would they replace the Sun with a simulator?

This actually would be guessing/ speculating, but one hypothesis might be possible. On a flat earth it is impossible to have a 24 hour day during the polar-summer. This because it would take to long for the Sun to go around and there still would be long-time darkness. What if they did discover more land behind the rim of the south-pole ice-wall, or actually did discover the firmament. If they would want to keep it a secret, gard it and investigate it, then they would need light. So they invented a way to light up the sky even during dark nighttime. It would give them immense possibilities in that area. I speculate that they have done it on this flat plane and the forgoing is (in)direct proof of it. I guess this is also the reason why they only show time-lapse footage so that  you won't see several fake Sun's pass in one day. You'll be the judge!, as we cannot see this with our own eyes.

Light-source comes up within clowds, suggesting nearby Sun

Platte aarde: wat is de afstand tot de maan, zon en zuidpool (dutch)

Van jongs af aan krijgen we via lessen mee dat de aarde bol is en om de zon heendraait. Dit valt dan ook praktisch niet meer te ontkennen. Wat als er wel sprake zou zijn van een platte aarde, welke dimensies zou het dan hebben? Hoe kunnen we op basis van beschikbare gegevens omtrent de dagelijkse bewegingen van de maan en zon de afstand tot die objecten berekenen en wat zou dan de afstand tot de zuidpool zijn?

Bolle of platte aarde?

Sinds de oudheid denkt de mens dat de aarde het middelpunt van het heelal, plat is en dat men er vanaf kan vallen. Deze zienswijze van de wereld heeft men gehad tot in 1534 Copernicus de heliocentrische theorie publiceerde. Sindsdien denkt men dat de zon het middelpunt van ons zonnestelsel is en dat de bolle aarde om de zon heendraait (lit.1). Wat als de aarde plat zou zijn, wat zouden dan de afstand van de zon en maan tot de aarde zijn en wat is dan de vermoedelijke afstand tot de zuidpool (Antarctica)?

Berekening afstand zon

De hoofdstad van Jemen is Sanaa en ligt ongeveer op dezelfde breedtegraad als Bangkok (Thailand). Op basis van gegevens van de zon vanuit deze twee posities kan via driehoeksberekening de afstand tot de zon worden bepaald. Zodra de verschillende hoeken met de zon op hetzelfde moment bekent is, kan op basis daarvan met de sinusregel één en ander worden berekend.

Hoekberekening zon te Sanaa (lit.2)
Data van datum: 2 november 2016;
Zonsopkomst: 6:00 = 6,00;
Zonsondergang: 17:33 = 17,55;
Vergelijkingstijdstip: 10:30 = 10,50;
Daglicht lengte: 11:33 = 11,55;
Halve daglengte tot 90 graden: 11,55/2 = 5,775;
Voorbijgegane tijd: 10,50 – 6,00 = 4,50;
Resttijd: 5,775 – 4,50 = 1,275;
Hoek met zon: tan-1(4,50/1,275) = 74,18 graden oost.

Hoekberekening zon te Bangkok (lit.3)
Data van datum: 2 november 2016;
Zonsopkomst: 6:13 = 6,216;
Zonsondergang: 17:50 min = 17,833;
Vergelijkingstijdstip: 14:30 = 14,50;
Daglicht lengte: 11:37 = 11,616;
Halve daglengte tot 90 graden: 11,616/2 = 5,808;
Voorbijgegane tijd: 14,50 – 6,216 = 8,284;
Resttijd: 8,284 – 5,808 = 2,476; 5,808 – 2,476 = 3,332;
Hoek met zon: tan-1(3,332/2,476) = 53,38 graden west.

Met een afstand tussen Sanaa en Bangkok van 6053 km (lit.4) krijgen we het volgende plaatje. Met in dit plaatje de volgende gegevens:

  • a = locatie Sanaa = 74,18 graden;
  • b = locatie Bangkok = 53,38 graden;
  • c = zon = 180-74,18-53,38 = 52,44 graden;
  • C = afstand Sanaa-Bangkok = 6053 km;
  • A = 6053/sin(52,44)*sin(74,18) = 7346 km;
  • B = 6053/sin(52,44)*sin(53,38) = 6128 km;
  • hc = afstand tot de zon = 7346*sin(53,38) = 6128*sin(74,18) = 5896 km.


Op de evenaar staan

Stel we staan op de evenaar en de zon gaat recht over ons heen. Ervan uitgaande dat de equator dezelfde lengte heeft in het platte vlak als op een bolvormige aarde dan is de afstand 2*π*6371 = 40.030 km. Oftewel per uur passeert de zon 1667 km. Indien het op onze locatie 12 uur ‘s middags is, zien we de zon recht boven ons. Drie tijdzone’s terug of verderop is het 3 uur ‘s middags of 9 uur ‘s ochtends en ziet men de zon onder een hoek van 45 graden. In 3 uur tijd legt de zon op de evenaar 3*1667 = 5001 km af. Omdat er sprake is van een haakse hoek op onze positie en 45 graden 3 uur verderop, is de afstand tot de zon gelijk aan de afgelegde afstand. Oftewel dit suggereert dat de zon op circa 5000 km afstand staat. Dit is een discrepantie met de eerder gevonden 5896 km, echter het geeft orde grootte van de vermoedelijke afstand (circa 5500 km) aan.

Berekening afstand maan

Naast de zon draait er nog een groot object over de aarde, namelijk de maan. De maan is meestal kenmerkend voor de nacht en de zon voor de dag. Desalniettemin kruisen de twee lichamen elkaar eveneens. Hoe zou dat kunnen in het geval van een platte aarde? Hierbij de gegevens van de maan in Sanaa (10:30) en Bangkok (14:30) op basis waarvan de hoek met de maan wordt bepaald.


Hoekberekening maan te Sanaa (lit.5)
Data van datum: 2 november 2016;
Maanstijging: 7:59 = 7,983;
Maansondergang: 19:42 = 19,70;
Vergelijkingstijdstip: 10:30 = 10,50;
Tijdsduur maan: 19,70-7,983 = 11,717;
Halve daglengte tot 90 graden: 11,717/2 = 5,858;
Voorbijgegane tijd: 10,50 – 7,983 = 2,517;
Resttijd: 5,858 – 2,517 = 3,341;
Hoek met maan: tan-1 (2,517/3,341) = 36,99 graden oost.

Hoekberekening maan te Bangkok (lit.6)
Data van datum: 2 november 2016;
Maanstijging: 8:04 = 8,066;
Maansondergang: 19:52 = 19,866;
Vergelijkingstijdstip: 14:30 = 14,50;
Tijdsduur maan: 19,866-8,066 = 11,80;
Halve daglengte tot 90 graden: 11,80/2 = 5,90;
Voorbijgegane tijd: 14,50 – 8,066 = 6,434;
Resttijd: 6,434 – 5,90 = 0,534; 5,90 – 0,534 = 5,366;
Hoek met maan: tan-1 (5,366/0,534) = 84,32 graden west.


Voor de maan krijgen we dan de volgende gegevens:

  • a = locatie Sanaa = 36,99 graden;
  • b = locatie Bangkok = 84,32 graden;
  • c = zon = 180-84,32-36,99 = 58,69 graden;
  • C = afstand Sanaa-Bangkok = 6053 km;
  • A = 6053/sin(58,69)*sin(36,99) = 4262 km;
  • B = 6053/sin(58,69)*sin(84,32) = 7049 km;
  • hc = afstand tot de maan = 7049*sin(36,99) = 4262*sin(84,32) = 4241 km.


Verschil afstand maan en zon

Zoals berekend draait de maan op een afstand van circa 4200 km terwijl de zon op 5500 km (gemiddelde van voorgaande stellingen) draait. Dit zou logisch zijn, omdat op die manier de zon en maan elkaar kunnen passeren. Het zou eveneens een verklaring zijn voor de zonsverduistering in een platte aarde positionering. Omdat de zon in 24 uur een afstand van 2*π*6371=40030 aflegt, heeft de zon op de platte aarde een snelheid van 1667 km/uur en draait het iedere etmaal een cirkel met een straal van 40030/(2*π) = 6371 km.

Afstand tot de zuidpool en dimensies

Meerdere bronnen geven aan dat Antarctica een oppervlak heeft van 14.000.000 km2 (lit.7). Dit getal is erg opvallend en lijkt op een berekende benadering danwel men weet het niet. Wat zou de afstand tot de zuidpool of de gemiddelde cirkel van de positie van Antarctica zijn indien het op een platte aarde ligt. Op een bolle aarde zou de gemiddelde cirkel een straal hebben van √(14.000.000/π) = 2111 km en dus ligt die lijn op sin-1(2111/6371) = 19,35 graden van de vermoedelijke zuidpool (bolle aarde). In het geval van een platte aarde ligt Antarctica om de aarde heen aan de buitenrand. Oftewel ten opzichte van de noordpool ligt de rand van Antarctica op 90+90–19,35=160,65 graden NB. In verhouding tot de straal van de aarde heeft 160,65 NB een straal van 2*π*6371*160,65/360= 17863 km met een omtrek van 2*π*17863=112.239 km.

Let wel voorgaande geeft slechts een benadering van de dimensies indien er wel sprake zou zijn van een platte aarde. De afstanden zijn in het voorgaande gebaseerd op bewegingen van de maan en de zon, waarnaast de afstand tot de zuidpool of de rand van Antarctica een logisch gevolg is. Voorgaande beweert niet dat er sprake is van een platte aarde, echter het suggereert slechts wat de dimensies zou zijn als het wel het geval zou zijn.

Lees verder: read further suggestion: Distance to sun moon and planets

Bronnen: Onerstaande bronnen zijn geraadpleegd op 2 november 2016:
Lit.1: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrische_theorie
Lit.2: http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/yemen/sana
Lit.3: https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/thailand/bangkok
Lit.4: https://www.distancecalculator.net/
Lit.5: http://www.timeanddate.com/moon/yemen/sana
Lit.6: https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/thailand/bangkok
Lit.7: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Michelson-Morley experiment disprove rotating globe

On a rapidly revolving earth combined with the movement of the earth around the sun, we can understand that with a correctly executed experiment that it would have proven movement. We turn around the axis on the equator at a speed of 6371*2*pi/(24*60*60) = 463 m/s. Next to that we revolve around the Sun at a speed of 150.000.000*2*pi/(365*24*60*60) = 29,885 km/s. This would mean a total moment of 29,885+0,463 = 30,348 km/s. We all understand that it is a tremendous high speed, which actually should be noticeable or measurable. For this is the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) thought of. How does this experiment work and did it actually fail?

Principle of Michelson-Morley experiment

It you shine a light or laser at a mirror splitting the light, so that one beam goes with the movement of the earth and one beam on a ninety degree angle to the north, then due to the movement of the earth the first beam will be slowed down. When mirrored back the first beam will reach the detector before the second beam. The result can then be translated into a speed difference of roughly 30 km/s.

Photo: V.V.Demjanow 2010 (3)

Some calculations

For instance if the mirrors are 100 km north and east of the detector/ laser, then to the north the beam travels 2*100 km / 300.000 km/s = 6,6666667*10^-4 seconds. But if the beam goes east, then it will be slowed down by the movement. So as it travels to the mirror it is slowed down by the mirror so that 100 km / (300.000-30.000) km/s = 3,703703704*10^-4 seconds. But after it is mirrored the movement is in favour of the beam so that 100 km / (300.000+30.000) km/s = 3,03030303*10^-4 seconds. Difference would be 3,703703704+3,03030303-6,6666667 = 0,067340064*10^-4 seconds. But in the mean time the earth has moved also, so we need to iterate, which I will do here only once as an example. In 3,703703704*10^-4 s the earth moves (times 30,348 km) 0,01124 km, so that 100,01124 /  (300.000-30.000) km/s = 3,70412*10^-4 seconds. But The detector will have moved also so 3,70412+3,030303 = 6,7344*10^-4 seconds * 30,348 = 0,020437626 km. This results in 99,9795 km / (300.000+30.000) = 3,029683708*10^-4 seconds and results in a total time of 6,7338037*10^-4 seconds. This results in a difference of 0,06713700828*10^-4 seconds. If this would be measured then it would suggest earth movement.


Failed experiment or not?

The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the earth would have a movement of around 4-8 km/s. This was 40 times less then expected on a moving earth, resulting in a null-test. This means that the assumed movement was not there, or was much less. This experiment is called by the established scientific community a big failed experiment. None the less, after this experiment similar experiments have been done also resulting in a null-test. Joos (1930) resulted in 1,5 km/s (375) times less then what expected) and Trimmer et.al. 2,5-3,8 cm/s (1973). So the question here for sure is, have all these experiments failed or can the null-result simply be explained due to a flat earth or motionless plane. I would suggest that all these null-test experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) actually disprove a rapidly revolving globe earth.

Sources: 
(1) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments
(3) Why Trimmer et al. "Did not detect" Aether Wind in 1973 http://vixra.org/abs/1008.0075

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Explanation on big chuncks of ice falling from the sky


From time to time you see unusual news like chuncks ice fall from the sky. The sky is clear but from out of nothing a big chunck of ice falls down. In many cases they will explain this phenomenon due to ice-buildup on the wings of plains. But in many cases the chuncks are enormous and might be the cause of crater-holes, and therefore are not caused by plains. Think about a strange phenomenon like gigantic blue-like icebergs made of 100% pure clean frozen water. So where does that come from. These most-likely also fall from the sky.

Firmament and ice-buildup

On a flat earth as described in the bible there is a firmament over the motionless plane. This glass like bowl is considered to be at a 100 km height above the earth. At that altitude it can get extremely cold and so moist and maybe condensation would freeze instantly as it would come into contact with the extreme cold glass-layer. This ice would then steadily grow in size up to the point it lets go. Small rock-sized chunks fall all over the world, but from time to time these can be much bigger.

Round craters

As the firmament is at 100 km height, the speed that the ice-chuncks would have, would be very great. Lets say about 200-300 km/hour. If a huge chunck would come down at great speed, it has an immense power. It might result in craters of several hundreds of meters in diameter. From the moment the ice lets loose the chunck falls in a straight line down (as the flat earth isn't rotating). This would mean that the chunck would crash into the earth at 90 degree angle, always resulting in an almost round crater. This is why craters all over the world seem to be round, and cannot be explained by meteors crashing down, at all kinds of angles on a rapidly rotating earth.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Thoughts on gravity

Gravity = the acceleration-speed

If above is above and below is below then what is above will drop down and it will increase in speed according to the acceleration-speed. On a flat plane gravity doesn't exist unless it means the acceleration-speed. On a globe we revolve at an incredible speed but the gravity on the equator and poles is the same.. So if we wouldn't get crushed at the poles then we would fly away at the equator. We revolve at a speed at around 1000 miles or 1600 km per hour at the equator but at the poles at 0 km per hour. Many things in this short text doesn't add up and would suggest a flat non-motioning plane.