Comprehensive coverage

SpaceX launched a car into deep space on the world's most powerful launcher

The maiden flight of the Falcon Heavy, SpaceX's new launcher, has been successfully completed, making it the most powerful active launcher in the world. He launched Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster into deep space, with an astronaut doll in the driver's seat. The landing of the first three stages, which make up the launcher, was carried out partially: the two side stages made a spectacular double landing at Cape Canaveral, but the middle stage crashed in the Atlantic Ocean.

The Tesla Roadster, and the astronaut doll, against the background of the Earth. No this is not a joke. Source: SpaceX.
The Tesla Roadster, and the "Starman" astronaut doll, against the background of the Earth. No this is not a joke. Source: SpaceX.

Update, 9/2/18: The news has been updated to indicate that the Tesla car will not reach the asteroid belt, as Elon Musk claimed on his Twitter account. Its orbit will reach slightly beyond the orbit of Mars, as originally planned by the company.

In front of the many spectators who came especially to watch the launch from Cape Canaveral, and millions of other spectators from around the world, the heavy Falcon took off yesterday (Tuesday), at 15:45 local time, for a successful and amazing first flight, followed by the LC-39A launch at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The Falcon Heavy is the new launcher of SpaceX. It is based on the Space Launch Company's regular launcher, the Falcon 9, a huge launcher in its own right that stands 70 meters tall. The Falcon 9 launcher has two stages - a central, multipurpose first stage, and a smaller, disposable upper stage. The Falcon Heavy has two additional first stages, attached to the main first stage and used as side boosters. In this way, the launch capability of the launcher was significantly increased, and after the successful test flight it officially became to the most powerful active launcher in the world.

Despite the great importance of the launcher, whose performance was demonstrated by the flight yesterday, its payload also provided much excitement and wonder. The wonderful cargo was the personal Tesla Roadster car of the company's founder and CEO Elon Musk, with an astronaut doll in the driver's seat, which entered an elliptical orbit around the sun, where they will reach the furthest point just beyond the distance of Mars from the sun.

"Space Acrobatics"

Liftoff of the Falcon Heavy followed by launch at the Kennedy Space Center. Source: SpaceX.
Liftoff of the Falcon Heavy followed by launch at the Kennedy Space Center. Source: SpaceX.

Those who watched the live broadcast from the launch, could not help but be impressed by the large number of stages, details and events, each impressive in its own right, that took place in such a short time. Elon Musk's description of the amazing combined landing of the first two stages side by side, "space acrobatics", perhaps also applies to all the complicated stages of the flight. Below is a breakdown:

The takeoff, originally scheduled for 13:30 p.m. local time, was delayed several times due to too high and too fast winds, but eventually the launcher took off after the launch at 15:45 p.m., to a loud bang and huge exhaust clouds.

Two and a half minutes after liftoff, the Falcon Heavy's two side stages detached from the middle stage, and the rods connecting them to the middle stage folded back into the body of each of the three stages.

While the main first stage continues to burn and accelerate the vehicle into space, the side stages have begun their double landing process, which looks a bit like a scene from a science fiction movie. In almost perfect coordination, the two stages landed on two adjacent land landing pads at Cape Canaveral Air Force Base (adjacent to the Kennedy Space Center, from which they had taken off just minutes earlier).

"Space acrobatics" - the double landing, reminiscent of a scene from a science fiction film. Source: SpaceX.
"Space acrobatics" - the double landing, reminiscent of a scene from a science fiction film. Source: SpaceX.

The landing stages included performing an initial rocket burn in order to return towards Cape Canaveral (Boostback Burn), a second burn during penetration into the atmosphere (Entry Burn), and a third and final burn in order to perform a soft landing on land (Landing Burn). In addition, in order to adjust in space, the stages use a system of cold gas propellers and mesh fins.

About 40 seconds after detaching from the two side stages, the central first stage detached from the upper stage, and began to return to Earth as well, this time to land on a mobile offshore rig in the heart of the Atlantic Ocean. Unlike the two side stages that landed successfully, Elon Musk said that the main stage ran out of fuel to land on the rig, and it crashed As a result, on the water at a speed of about 480 km/h, about 100 meters near the rig. It's not entirely clear what the condition of the rig is, but Musk said the crash destroyed two of its propellers, sending "a shower of shrapnel overboard."

At the same time, the upper stage continued the final stages of launch, using its single Merlin engine, adapted for operation in a vacuum.

About four minutes after liftoff, the payload fairing, intended to protect the launched payload from the atmosphere, broke off and both parts fell back to Earth.

A billion-year journey through deep space

Earth from the driver's seat of the Tesla car. Source: SpaceX.
Earth from the driver's seat of the Tesla car. Source: SpaceX.

After the payload fairing came off, the amazing payload - some would say ostentatious - that was placed in the nose of the rocket was revealed: a red Tesla Roadster car, which is the personal property of Elon Musk. The tycoon emphasized that since this was the first test flight of a new launcher with a very high level of risk, no customer would agree to risk a valuable payload such as a satellite. According to him, the other option, of placing a standard dummy mass such as concrete - was "too boring".

If sending a car into space wasn't enough - a doll known as "Starman" was placed in the driver's seat, dressed in a real model of the space suit developed by SpaceX. The suit will be used by NASA astronauts that the company will send to the International Space Station in the future, using the Dragon 2 spacecraft that it is currently developing.

If we go back for a moment to the flight stages - they are not over yet - after the first combustion of the upper stage, it is restarted for a short time in order to put the car into a "parking orbit" around the Earth. This initial orbit moved the car and upper stage through the Van Allen radiation belts. Musk stated that this is one of the (many) risk factors of the flight, and his fear was that the intense radiation might damage the electronics of the upper stage.

After a six-hour cruise in the initial parking orbit, the upper stage's rocket engine was re-ignited, accelerating the spacecraft to escape velocity from Earth's gravity and to its final destination - an elliptical orbit around the Sun.

Elon Musk said Because the combustion of the upper stage was stronger than expected, and that the car will reach the distance of the asteroid belt in its orbit, beyond the maximum distance that was originally planned - which is similar to that of Mars from the Sun. At the same time, astronomers from around the world noticed that the numbers he provided were inconsistent with such an orbit. Spice X later provided an update on the track data, which show that eventually its orbit will indeed reach beyond the distance of Mars from the Sun, but not to the asteroid belt.

Angle from another camera - where the "Strawman" doll is clearly visible wearing the SpaceX space suit. Source: SpaceX.
Angle from another camera - in which the "Strawman" doll dressed in the SpaceX space suit is clearly visible. Source: SpaceX.

Three cameras were attached to the car that broadcast spectacular, almost surreal, live footage of her and the astronaut doll in the initial orbit around the Earth. The car has batteries that only last for 12 hours, after which you will not be able to continue taking pictures and communicating with the Earth.

The Falcon Heavy - the most powerful active launcher in the world

It took SpaceX seven years to execute the successful launch, after Elon Musk announced the development of the Falcon Heavy in 2011. Developing the powerful vehicle was no easy task for the company, and the launch, originally planned for 2013, has been repeatedly postponed since then.

Among the problems that the company had to deal with in the development of the launcher, was the large number of its engines. A regular Falcon 9 has 9 engines, hence its name. The heavy version, with three first stages, has 27 engines in total - more than any other American launcher in history (it is second only toN-1 The Soviet one - if it had 30 engines, and due to the great complication in operating so many engines, all its launches ended in complete failure).

In addition, the two side stages created strong loads on the central first stage, and as a result the company had to redesign its chassis. "At first, it sounds very easy: just stick two [Falcon 9] first stages as side boosters. How hard will it be? But then everything changes. All the loads change, the aerodynamics change completely, and the vibrations and the acoustics are tripled." said before Musk on the development of the Falcon Heavy.

Musk revealed today, at a press conference that exists after launch, because the company considered three times in the past to cancel the heavy Falcon program, due to its development difficulties. According to him, the company invested at least half a billion dollars on him, and maybe even more.

Despite these difficulties, the company proved yesterday that the design of the launcher is correct, and that it is capable of not only lifting itself off the launch pad, but putting a payload towards an interplanetary orbit in deep space.

So what exactly are the capabilities of the new launcher? And how does it compare to other launchers in history? The heavy Falcon is capable of generating a thrust of 22,819 kilo-newton, which is roughly equivalent to that produced by 18 Boeing 747s combined. Relative to launchers active today, this is the most powerful thrust for any launcher. Although, the space shuttle and launch theSaturn 5, both no longer active, were stronger than him in this respect.

The Saturn 5 was also stronger than it in terms of the ability to carry cargo into space, with about 140 tons that it could put into low-Earth orbit, while the heavy Falcon is able to launch 63,800 kg into low-Earth orbit (in a one-time configuration in which it consumes all of its fuel, and the three phases burn in the atmosphere). It is worth noting that if we consider the weight of the space shuttle itself, and not just the cargo that can be deployed from its cargo compartment into space, then it was also stronger than the heavy Falcon in terms of carrying capacity.

The 27 engines of the Falcon launcher are heavy. Source: Elon Musk's Twitter page.
The 27 engines of the Falcon launcher are heavy. Source: Elon Musk's Twitter page.

In relation to the capacity of the one who until yesterday held the title of "the most powerful active launcher", Delta 4 heavy of the competitor ULA, which is able to launch 28,370 kg to a low-earth orbit, the heavy Falcon has a carrying capacity more than double. More important is the difference in price between the two - while the Delta 4 Heavy costs around $350 million, SpaceX sells a Falcon Heavy launcher for only $90 million.

What next? And will the Falcon Heavy send humans to the moon?

The heavy Falcon, according to Elon Musk, will allow the company to launch the heaviest types of satellites that exist in the industry. Even so, there aren't many customers waiting in line to launch on it yet. Later this year, only two missions are planned for it - the launch of a Saudi Arabian communication satellite, and a demonstration mission of the American Air Force.

The company intends to use the launcher to compete with the US Department of Defense's heavy security satellite launches, which until today only the heavy Delta 4 could launch into space.

The low price, together with its increased capabilities, may also encourage NASA to choose the heavy Falcon for missions to Mars and other celestial bodies in the solar system. The US government also reacted positively to yesterday's launch. President Donald Trump himself tweeted congratulations to Elon Musk and the SpaceX company:

But the Falcon Heavy likely won't launch humans into space, at least not according to Elon Musk's current intentions. Yesterday, in a telephonic press conference before the launch, Musk revealed that the company No longer planning to use it to launch two tourists into orbit around the moon, A program announced by the company last year. Musk noted that the development of its future giant spacecraft, BFR - A fully multipurpose spacecraft designed to carry 100 people to the Red Planet - is progressing quickly, and that the company is not interested in investing the resources required to train the heavy Falcon for manned missions. According to him, only if the development of the BFR encounters delays, will he reconsider launching humans aboard the heavy Falcon.

Musk apparently does not intend to stop for a moment, not even after launching the most powerful rocket in the world, and is already preparing to launch a much more powerful space vehicle. “[The launch of the Falcon Heavy] gives me confidence that we can make the BFR design work. I think we can continue to advance the technology to achieve the ability of fast and full multi-use," Musk said at the press conference today.

Watch the full broadcast from the launch:

See more on the subject on the science website:

252 תגובות

  1. This nonsense of the flat world needs to be shut down once and for all before some other eccentric launches himself into space in a rocket.

    There is no such thing as a flat world, no! How many times can it be repeated children, what don't you understand, the world is not flat!!

    It is square.

  2. giving
    I enjoyed it 🙂 but … I was embarrassed …. Oh my God I thought you were 12. 12 with Denning-Kruger Syndrome. My mistake!!!

    Matan - I brought you some evidence for the shape of the Earth, and you were not able to contradict any of them. You brought a number of apparent proofs that the earth is flat - and we contradicted them all.

    Let's declare one and only observation, and please - try to disprove it with integrity. Well - how do you explain ebb and flow. In particular - why are there 2 tide cycles per day?

    Let's leave the past behind. You think all scientists are liars, and I think all religious people are liars - arguing about the past will not advance us. Just try to answer my question.

  3. Hi Matan, I would be happy to continue the debate between us until we reach a decision, one way or another!

    what are you saying?

    By the way, I think it's better to find another platform to conduct this discussion, it could be Facebook or just email, I'm open to suggestions.

  4. Israel,

    It is impossible to give you a yes or no answer, because as I am trying to explain to you - your question is not well defined. Your premise is a photon emitted from point A towards B. That is, a photon that at a certain initial moment is located at A *and* also has a definite momentum (you claim that it was emitted towards B, therefore it must have momentum from A to B). Before you asked the question, you already disproved quantum mechanics. This question cannot be answered within the framework of the theory.

    If you look at a photon emitted at a certain moment with momentum P, then it was not emitted from a certain point in space and there is no meaning to the question of how far it traveled. It was spread in space at the moment of emission, and it remained spread in space after 3 seconds. If you would like to give up the second assumption (that is, a photon that is emitted from point A but does not have a defined momentum) then in order to give meaning to its position after 3 seconds you need to perform a measurement, that is to intervene and change the quantum system. This measurement result will always yield some point 3 light seconds away from A but as I have said repeatedly, this is a measurement and as such is a destructive act to the system. That is, there is a whole world of physical effects that are beyond measurement (like the interference in the two-slit experiment), so that the measurement at point A during the emission and the measurement at a point 3 light seconds away after 3 seconds are really not enough to describe the entire system. This is true in classical physics, but not in quantum mechanics. During the 3 seconds that the particle was not measured it could perform quantum interactions with its environment.

    This whole line of questions has already been answered before.

    1. I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not going to dig back in the comments. Lorentz transformation is a type of symmetry. What does it mean "what is the relationship between CMB and the Lorentz transformation"? What does Saturn have to do with rotational symmetry?

    2. As far as I know, no, but I'm not an expert in the field. I'm answering from the hip and maybe I'm missing something. In principle, if you measure radiation from a source without knowing what its emission characteristics are (such as intensity), you will not be able to know what the distance is. There are other emission properties (eg if you know the spectrum of the emission and you know the relative velocity you can use the doppler effect to find the distance), but you always need some amount of information about the emission and the environment.

    3. I already explained to you before, including explicit examples. There is no contradiction between the existence of a rest system and homogeneity. If you take, for example, paper and draw on it a grid of particles at equal distances, it will be homogeneous (at every point the density of points is equal). If you do a Lorentz transformation, it will still be homogeneous, although the distances between the particles will no longer be equal in both axes. The density will remain independent of the location and therefore the medium will be homogeneous.

  5. Israel
    In this article there is an explanation and a formula for understanding the Doppler effect on the background radiation - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206100/velocity-of-solar-system-relative-to-cmb

    Lorentz contraction is not needed, because the speed is not very high.

    There is no way to know the distance to the beam. What you perceive are photons. They do not age with time.
    If you know the properties of the emitter and the medium - you will be able to extend the distance. For example - if it is a laser beam with a certain and known dispersion, in a vacuum, then depending on the intensity you can extend the distance.
    If you move - you might be able to use parallax.
    If you have several reception points, you can use triangulation.

    In the world of radio, the situation is slightly different. If you send a pulse then the shape of the pulse will change with the distance. One reason for this is the different speed of each wavelength in the medium (air in this case).

  6. Hi Albanzo, glad you are responding.

    Of course I remember that I presented the question and where, after all, I copied it from there..

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/researchers-discover-the-most-distant-supermassive-black-hole-07121704/comment-page-13#comment-723626

    But I didn't see a direct response from you to this targeted question after it was presented in the same thread.

    So let's get an unequivocal answer to an unequivocal question:

    If a photon left at instant 0 - a specified time - from point A to point B at a distance of five light seconds, then after 3 seconds is it not with equal probability before and after point B? We will leave for now what the measurement will reveal.

    If possible answer yes or no.

    And if you could also address the other questions:

    1. The relationship between the background radiation and the Lorentz transformations, preferably a formula or a link.

    2. Is there any theoretical way to know the distance of the body emitting electromagnetic radiation if we do not know the intensity of the radiation and we do not have any data on the body's environment? Can we, for example, know the distance from us of a flashing flashlight or a radio transmitter that emits periodic pulses in space if we do not know the strength of the flashlight or transmitter?

    3. The logic behind the m-m experiment. A site-specific rest system - like the radiation system - contradicts the assumption of homogeneity in terms of rest systems (why this one?).

    Thanks.

  7. Israel,

    They actually answered this question for you. I explained it to you myself over a million comments. A photon with a definite momentum is spread over the entire space (I also explained to you that this is not really a physical state but a mathematical building block, but not important at the moment). Such a photon cannot be said to have left at time t from point A. It is not spread over the entire space *only when it's convenient for you*. It was spread over the entire space also at time t. In particular, he didn't get out of point A. Don't you remember all that long discussion? Which turned into a thousand questions about lasers and explanations about what a wave packet and semi-classical approximation of light is?

    We talked about the fact that while the photon is applied, the measurement always gives a single result and it will always satisfy the classical equations that say that the distance between two measurements whose time difference is t will be ct. We talked about the fact that what happens outside of the measurements cannot be ignored because this is the majority of quantum mechanics (like for example entanglement as in the two-slit experiment). Where were you when I wrote all these things? After that you get angry when I tell you that you don't read what I write to you.

  8. So what do you say, if a photon left at instant 0 - a specified time - from point A to point B at a distance of five light seconds, then after 3 seconds it is not found with equal probability before and after point B?

    And regarding the background radiation, the question is how it is related to the Lorentz transformations. I need to use them to know my speed relative to her, and not relative to your Jeep..

  9. Israel
    I keep saying the same thing. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm saying what I think is happening: if you know when the photon went out and in which direction, then you're not in the quantum world.

    Regarding the background radiation, I will say again what I understand. The background radiation provides a reference system. If you move at a certain speed relative to the background radiation then you can tell. Therefore, anyone, at any speed, can calculate the age of the universe, and will reach the same result.

    In particular - the Earth moves relative to the background radiation at a speed of about 400 km per second, towards the sign of Leo.

    But (!!!) - this does not mean that there is an absolute reference system. It just means we have such a system. My Jeep also defines a reference system...

  10. The photon will not see from behind the laser and there is a good reason for that, but this still does not answer the original question:

    But if it is spread in the space before, and with equal probability, then there are two possibilities:

    1. The reality of the photon beyond B is not something physical - it is only the wave function or philosophy or zebra virology, but not the photon itself.

    (A bit strange if we consider that the square of the wave function is the probability of finding the particle at a certain point).

    2. The particle itself is also beyond B.

    In case 1, then there are no realities for a photon that moves faster than c, Einstein is right and Quantum regrets. But to my understanding, this is not the case.

    In case 2, if the photon itself is beyond B in a time less than ct, then there is no escaping the conclusion that it moves faster than c and in fact at any speed.'

    I still haven't received an answer from anyone here about the question expressed in the last line:

    "In case 2, if the photon itself is beyond B in a time less than ct, then there is no escaping the conclusion that it moves faster than c and in fact at any speed".

    So if according to you the photon will not be seen from behind the laser, then it is not spread with equal probability beyond it, right?

    And what did you answer about the background radiation? What is her connection to Lorenz?

  11. Israel
    "Knowledge" refers to the action of the particle on a large system.
    A single electron is seen in a bubble cell, and a single photon is seen in an eye. If I created a photon at A and it moves towards B, it will always reach it. Let's launch trillions of photons in a certain direction with a laser. No such photon will see from behind the laser.

    Regarding the background radiation, I didn't answer?

  12. So-and-so 123
    2400 years ago, the Greek Artosthenes measured the circumference of the earth this way. He also calculated the size of the moon and the distance to it, and for fun also the distance to the sun and its size.

    If I were to build an intelligence scale, then at the top end I would put Artosthenes and at the bottom end my slippers. Matan and his friends are somewhere below the ladder...

  13. Hello everyone, I found a wonderful proof of the earth's sphericity (but there is not enough space for the author... no, just)

    It goes like this: on the days of the equinoxes (March 20-21 and September 22-23), a person who will be on the equator will see the sun directly above him at an angle of 90 degrees from the horizon at midnight. Now, let's look at another person who is 5,000 km away from the first person ( The direction does not matter, but for the sake of simplicity let's assume that the other person is also on the equator only 5,000 km east/west), he will see the sun at a height of 45 degrees above the horizon, from this it follows that if the world is flat the distance of the sun from the surface of the earth must be 5,000 km .

    Now, let's jump to a third person who is also on the equator but at twice the distance of the previous one, 10,000 km - which is 90 degrees of longitude on a spherical world - the reality is that he will see the sun almost setting, only about half a degree above the horizon, but according to those who think that the earth is Flat A simple calculation in trigonometry will show that the sun should be seen at a height of 26.5 degrees above the horizon!!!

    Even if someone tries to claim that the distances on Earth are different from what we all know, it won't really help them, here is an example: even if someone moves eastward 20,000 km from the person who sees the sun at the zenith, he should still see the sun at a height of 14.03 degrees above the horizon. 30,000 km and the sun will appear to him at an altitude of 9.45 degrees.

    Pay attention, even if someone claims that the sun is in the shape of a table lamp / spotlight, i.e. it only illuminates a certain area (which is not the case as we all see, the sun always looks like a ball whether it is in the middle of the sky or at sunset) or that the thick atmosphere is what causes us not to see the sun at night , it won't help, because even if these claims were true, we shouldn't have seen the sun setting on the horizon but slowly darkening in the mists of the atmosphere until it faded or it was smaller than a sphere to a thin strip of light and then disappeared (like a flashlight pointed straight ahead and slowly rotating towards the ceiling) but all this would happen at the said height, 26.5 degrees.

    In short, in a flat world, no matter what happened to it, the sun would never set below the horizon!

    It seems to me that this is conclusive proof that there is no answer to the fact that the earth is not flat but spherical.
    what do you say? I would appreciate comments.

  14. Israel
    According to my understanding - if you have no knowledge about a certain particle, then and only then, it can be anywhere with equal probability. If you created it at a certain time and it moves in a certain direction - then you know almost everything about it. The same applies to both an electron and a proton

  15. In my understanding according to quantum mechanics it is not only a matter of measurement, the electron simply has no momentum or any other quantum property before the measurement.

    A green photon in a certain rest system has an exact frequency whether you measured it or not, and therefore also an exact momentum. This is the reason for my understanding that according to the uncertainty principle it is spread with equal probability in the universe before the measurement.

    What about the other questions? What about the contradiction between Postulate 1 and background radiation? And how does background radiation have anything to do with Lorentz transformations? It must be related, otherwise you get a mathematical contradiction, but where is the connection and where is the link?

    And what about the source of the electromagnetic radiation? Can you think of any theoretical or practical way to know its distance to the meter without knowing its strength?

    Here's another question that I don't know how to solve and I'm not sure of the data:

    It is said that we have 3 particles entwined with each other, and they are together in the room but measured at different times.

    If the measurement shows that all three are always in the same quantum state, is the measurement of the first in terms of times the one that led to the collapse and the measurement of the other two only revealed the results of the measurement?

  16. Israel
    The uncertainty principle. The more precisely you know the frequency, the less accurate you will be in knowing the photon's exit time. I understand...

  17. Miracles

    If a photon left point A at time t then you know everything about it. It is like a train (not the Israel train) and therefore will reach point B at the scheduled time.
    If you stand in front of the photon, you will see it in the eye.

    How is it different from the electrons in sqq?

    Do you know what the momentum of an electron is in kq? Because you do know the momentum of a photon that left point A in the point's frame of reference until it reaches point B.

  18. Wookie

    After I wrote you the "OK", I saw something on TV that made me answer you anyway.

    You write: "I am unable to deal with your insistence on finding all kinds of strange interpretations of words, your search for things I did not say in my words, your diverting everything that was said in directions that were not there and are not related, your unwillingness to listen, and your childish obsession."

    You also wrote:

    "For people who haven't been stuck in the same spot for a decade because they think the sun shines for them from the place where the sun doesn't and refuse to listen to others and try to understand or learn from them, I'm still willing to try to invest energy in helping them. But you are not one of them.'

    'That's your first problem. I already have hundreds of proofs that this is a baseless belief.
    The second is the cherry picking you do to things people tell you, which only exacerbates the first problem.

    Now since you ask so nicely then I will release you from the yoke and leave you to talk only to people who do not offend or challenge your crooked and flawed self-concept.'

    And you started with:

    "If you've ever had or will doubt why people stop talking to you, you'll know that it's because you're trying not to understand or misunderstand what they're telling you (or at least make it seem that way)."

    I suggested earlier that you deal with your claim that I don't understand correctly what people say to me (even if we ignore the educational tone in the expression "that you try not to understand or misunderstand what they say to you (or at least make it seem that way)".

    You refused, and I believe there are good reasons for that:

    1. There is nothing I misunderstood in what was said to me, certainly not in this article.

    2. "People" keep talking to me. The only subjects I almost comment on are physics and animals, especially physics.

    The two regular commenters here on physics matters who have a high school education are Albenzo and Nisim I believe. Most of their reactions in these matters are to me, and in the case of Albenzo, who cannot be suspected of excessive affection for me, *all* of his reactions to me in the last two years are his initiative.

    And it is needless to say that Yoda, who also understands a bit of physics, argues with me a lot, despite the lack of agreement between us.

    So which people exactly are you talking about? Who exactly has knowledge or understanding of physics? to you?

    But that is not the point.

    I invite you to show me and the forum the one and only time in the last ten years that I misunderstood what people told me, that I "cherry-picked" that I lied, that I got stuck, that I looked for things you didn't say, that I deviated, that I have poor self-view, or whatever you want.

    Just please, no subtext that anyone can interpret as they wish.

    I in return, if you ask, can show you how wrong you are in any argument we've ever had.

    Proper disclaimer: I don't know you and I don't know if you're a newcomer or maybe for some reason you don't understand how arrogant, arrogant and chatty you sound when you write "I'll try to help you understand," "I'm trying to understand your way of thinking," "baby steps," and "You insist on not understanding." Maybe in a foreign language it sounds legitimate, in a language spoken in Israel it sounds arrogant and condescending even with your knowledge and understanding surpassing that of your interlocutor, not to mention the case that this is not the case.

    Ready to take the challenge? Want to expose my many mistakes and all the other things you say about me? Want to start this article?

  19. Israel

    sorry no I'm not going to argue with you any more, period.
    Not out of insult. Not with the intention of not hurting you.
    Simply because of a lack of purpose. I am unable to deal with your insistence on finding all kinds of strange interpretations to the words, your search for things I did not say in my words, your diverting everything that was said in directions that were not there and are not related, the unwillingness to listen, and the childish obsession (no offense intended, really). I already ran out several times in the past, and now I just ran out for good.

    Eat.

  20. Another time waiting.

    Maybe we will use the time to discuss the changes made to the site. Does anyone here find any advantage in the new format? With the comments popping up on the smartphone? that recent comments do not appear on the right? That the reaction area is cut? that the details are not saved?

    Avi Blizovsky, do you even read all the negative reactions regarding the changes? Can't something be done about it?

    Thanks.

  21. Wookie

    Your video is good and to the point. If you could please continue with factual responses like, without "baby steps", I'm trying to understand your way of thinking" "I'm trying to help you understand" "You insist on not understanding" and other plazinin - then I have no problem debating with you.

    But note: in the video it is explicitly stated, throughout but especially at minute 7, that the probability of finding the particle is not the same at every point along its path, but is concentrated in specific areas. This follows directly from the uncertainty principle (minute 10).

    This contradicts what was said in the question I presented regarding the photon:

    "You can emit a photon from point A and after a suitable time receive it at B.

    But if it is spread in space before that, and with equal probability.'

    Miracles

    Regarding the photon - see response to the walkie-talkie. Spreads in space with equal probability.

    "How to measure the temperature" Believe it or not, you can even use an onion thermometer, like you measure a baby. If not, then with a radiation meter.

    You will get a contradiction to postulate 1, because if you take a video of the cesium clock C and the temperature clock next to it for an hour, say, then you will get a different video than a video of clock A and the temperature clock next to it, and you can even know according to the change guardian your speed relative to the background radiation .

    But that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that the age of the universe changes at the same rate at every point in the universe, how you measure the change is already a technical matter.

    My question is: how is background radiation related to Lorentz transformations? No one claims that they are not related, I'm just asking for an explanation, or better a link, to link them.

  22. Israel
    How do you measure the temperature? If you look at the background radiation, you will see that the measurement is direction dependent. For example, we know that the Earth has a speed relative to the background radiation. Therefore, there is no contradiction.

  23. Israel
    If a photon left point A at time t then you know everything about it. It is like a train (not the Israel train) and therefore will reach point B at the scheduled time.
    If you stand in front of the photon, you will see it in the eye.

    How is it different from the electrons in sqq?

    Where is there a smear? Your knowledge of the direction of the photon is not absolute, so if you stand far away, you will find that the photon is not exactly where you expected. This is exactly the phenomenon you call a laser beam. As you move further away, the cross-sectional area of ​​the season increases.

  24. waiting

    Until you are released, third question:

    Is there any theoretical way to know the distance of the body emitting electromagnetic radiation if we do not know the intensity of the radiation and we do not have any data on the body's environment? Can we, for example, know the distance from us of a flashing flashlight or a radio transmitter that emits periodic pulses in space if we do not know the strength of the flashlight or transmitter?

    And I don't mean that we will compare the light intensity received from two points at different distances from the flashlight. I mean using measurements from one point in the country.

  25. And another:

    1. We have two synchronized cesium clocks A and B at a distance of say 10 light years.

    2. At time 0 on clocks A and B, cesium clock C passes by A in the direction of clock B when the time at that time is also 0. Gamma equals 10.

    3. Clock C reaches B in about a year and the time in B is over 10 years.

    4. The time that has passed in the universe, which can also be measured by measuring the temperature, is about 10 years.

    5. According to postulate 1 in the relations of all inertial systems the same, therefore if we put temperature clocks next to clocks A, B and C, their relative change in relation to the cesium clocks will be equal in all three.

    6. But since we immediately reach a mathematical contradiction if we accept sections 1-6, the explanation I have received so far is that postulate 1 does not include the cosmic background radiation, therefore if clocks A and B are at rest relative to the radiation, they will tick at the same rate as the temperature clocks the ones next to them, and the C clock will tick slower than the temp clock next to it. If clock C is stationary relative to radiation, then clocks A and B will tick slower than the temp clocks adjacent to them.

    7. The conclusion is that the temp clocks always tick faster than the cesium clocks next to them, in correlation with their speed relative to the background radiation.

    And the question: What is the law of leaving Mount Sinai? What does the ticking rhythm of clocks have to do with the cosmic background radiation?

  26. In the meantime, a question for the forum that has not yet been answered:

    "You can emit a photon from point A and after a suitable time receive it at B.

    But if it is spread in the space before, and with equal probability, then there are two possibilities:

    1. The reality of the photon beyond B is not something physical - it is only the wave function or philosophy or zebra virology, but not the photon itself.

    (A bit strange if we consider that the square of the wave function is the probability of finding the particle at a certain point).

    2. The particle itself is also beyond B.

    In case 1, then there are no realities for a photon that moves faster than c, Einstein is right and Quantum regrets. But to my understanding, this is not the case.

    In case 2, if the photon itself is beyond B in a time less than ct, then there is no escaping the conclusion that it moves faster than c and in fact at any speed.'

    I still haven't received an answer from anyone here about the question expressed in the last line:

    "In case 2, if the photon itself is beyond B in a time less than ct, then there is no escaping the conclusion that it moves faster than c and in fact at any speed".

  27. Why should I be offended? Thank you very much for the thoughtful and knowledgeable response. As long as you don't curse then I have no problem.

    I brought the Higgs field only as an example of a truly homogeneous system. My question was only about the logic behind the MM experiment in 1887, and the physics of that time I believe I know and understand.

    So I'll ask one more time: it was said that the MM experiment would have found what it asked for, namely the rest system of the ether. It is even said to be the same as the rest system of the background radiation.

    Do you agree that there are an infinite number of rest systems besides that one? So if the universe has a preference for this rest system, then it is not homogeneous in terms of rest systems, right?

  28. Israel,

    Audio. It took me a long time to write you the response. I wrote a long one, deleted, wrote another one, deleted again. In the end I decided on a relatively short response because the truth is that I don't believe there is any point in this discussion. You will probably take it as an insult, but it is important for me to clarify that I do not say this as an insult and really do not intend to insult or humiliate you, but I have to say this - it is evident from your response that you simply do not understand what you are talking about. I'm sorry, I really don't say this to offend, but to talk about physics we need a common language and you simply speak a language that you invented for yourself and it is completely wrong and does not coincide with physics as it is in reality.

    1. The whole part about it being a uniform non-homogeneous and isotropic ocean is one big confusion that comes from the fact that you probably don't understand what homogeneous and isotropic is. Do the simplest test there is - take an infinite three-dimensional space filled with a liquid of uniform density. Review the mathematical definitions of homogeneity, isotropicity, and the existence of a rest system. Don't pour paragraphs on top of paragraphs of text and play it as a lawyer. Check if it is homogeneous (if there is symmetry for moving an experimental system to any point in the fluid), if it is isotropic (if there is perfect symmetry for rotation that does not change any external field) and if there is a Lorentz transformation in which the 3-momentum of all the fluid particles sums to 0 . that's it. Each of these tests takes exactly one line and the answer to all of them is "yes". The same goes for the second example I gave you. A liquid that has a constant current does not fulfill this (violates isotropy) and no claim that in a vacuum there is no difference between a constant current and statics (a claim that is fundamentally correct but characterizes the vacuum and not a liquid of uniform density) will not change this.

    2. Everything you wrote about Higgs is completely wrong. Again I say that I am not trying to offend and I will point out that field theory is a fairly advanced material that is learned at the earliest in a master's degree, and only by some of the physics students. So there's nothing to be ashamed of that you don't understand her. But you have to understand that you don't understand her, not even at all. In field theory, all particles are described as fields as a result of the infinite degrees of freedom that are added to the particle (it is not located in space). The "Higgs field" is no more a field than the electron. You describe it as some kind of force field from a children's animated show that resists movement through it, but it is a field just like Elkron is a field. There is no such thing as "passing through the field", the field is a mathematical expression of the space that defines the particle degrees of freedom. In particular, each mode of its motion is a particle, just like an electron is a particle. He is not some spell that creates inertia. He is just another particle that explains why the particles in the standard model have mass even though the symmetry of the model implies that they cannot have mass. In other words, inertia exists even in a system that has no Higgs particles at all. The Higgs is important to the Standard Model because of the specific symmetries in it and it is not some magic that slows us down as we move. You may have thrown around the term "symmetry breaking" as a buzzword but you just clarified that you actually have no understanding of what the Higgs mechanism is and what its role is in giving mass to standard model particles. You have painted yourself a picture in your head where the Higgs is a special force field similar to the ether and you are working according to this picture which really could not be further from reality. Higgs is a particle, like an electron, with specific symmetry properties and a very interesting interaction with the other particles. It "sticks" to them and gives them mass even though the symmetries of the standard model dictate that they should not have a mass of their own. The Higgs field is not a "system". It is a particle, like an electron, like a photon, like a pion or a gluon. And it is true that the field does not have a rest system as you said, but that is only because if you were careful about the definitions of "rest system" you would know that it is something that is defined only for a mode of oscillation with a defined momentum (or a group of such), and not for an operator that is a superposition of modes. And if you look at the mode of Higgs (in other words, a single particle) then how does it have a rest system and you are welcome to open articles on dispersions yourself and see. The whole part about the Higgs has nothing to do with physics. It is a story you told yourself to try to understand the Higgs, and unfortunately you were very wrong.

    Sorry if it sounds like I'm making fun of you or trying to put you down. really no. But you must understand that what you are doing is not physics. It's making up stories for yourself. The reason I say these things is because I am sure that at least some of the things you are indeed capable of doing. Even if you don't learn field theory now, there is nothing that prevents you from recalling the mathematics of special relativity for a moment and proving to yourself in two or three lines that there are a million examples of a homogeneous, isotropic medium with a rest system. It really shouldn't be too big on you.

  29. Grandfather zygzont, but that's what the MM experiment was trying to find, and obviously if it was found then there is a preferred rest system for the universe, then where is the homogeneity?

    Capish?

  30. Israel
    "If the MM experiment were to find the rest system of the ether and it is that of Mars, then there is a preferred system in the universe, so where is the homogeneity?"

    Az di bobe volt gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde

  31. Ok, so we'll make it homogeneous in a speed test as well.

    Obviously, if one ocean has the rest system of Earth, another of Mars and the third of Andromeda, then we have 3 different rest systems.

    And if the MM experiment were to find the rest system of the ether and it is that of Mars, then there is a preferred system in the universe, so where is the homogeneity?

    And this, in contrast to his Higgs Ocean, does not have any preferred relaxation system.

  32. Israel
    Homogeneous means that a certain property does not change its value depending on location. Isotopic means no orientation dependence.
    On the face of it, it looks like the definitions overlap. But no - take a uniform magnetic field (as in MRI). Everywhere (within the device) the field value is constant, but of course in every direction the field value is different.

    The site can be homogeneous and isotropic, and at the same time it can have a reference system.

  33. The Higgs field was given as an example of an ocean that is indeed homogeneous and isotropic, in contrast to the Pacific Ocean whose rest system is the Earth, the atmosphere of Jupiter whose rest system is Jupiter, and the air in the space station whose rest system is the station.

    If the site has the rest system that the MM experiment tried to find, then it is not homogeneous and isotropic because the fact is, it has a rest system - let's say the rest system of the background radiation, so it is not homogeneous and isotropic.

    On the other hand, Maxwell's model is built on the ether whose properties are described in detail, in contrast to Einstein who does not talk about the physical properties of the medium and his theory is built on postulates.

    Therefore, if we "open" Maxwell's ether system to an infinite system, we will get the properties we know of electromagnetic waves whose speed is the same for any meter, inertia, Lasage gravitation without friction, and the possibility of non-locality, i.e. a remote effect without the transmission of information, just as in air the speed of molecules can be much higher than the speed of sound but information only travels at the speed of sound.

  34. Israel
    Einstein talked about properties of space itself. That is, he claimed that space itself is not homogeneous and isotropic. This is contrary to what Newton claimed.

    The Higgs mechanism belongs to quantum mechanics.

  35. I will try again this time. will go, will go no no.

    If you are in an infinite homogeneous and isotropic ocean, and there is a preferred direction in which you must swim against the ocean, i.e. the ocean exerts a force on you, then the ocean system is not uniform. Fact is, when you are at rest relative to the ocean no force is acting on you, and when you are swimming at a constant speed there is a force acting on you.

    But what is the difference between constant speed and rest? Is there a difference between the two in space? Negative.

    Therefore in the example that the system is not homogeneous and isotropic. Fact, in one state you are at a constant speed (at rest relative to the ocean) and no force is acting on you, and in another state you are at a constant speed relative to the ocean and a force is acting on you.

    So where are the homogeneities and isotropics? How is situation A different from situation B?

    Think about the Higgs ocean (in general, how can you talk about the Higgs field that fills the universe and continue to say that the universe is empty as was the claim after 1905).

    The Higgs field resists the acceleration of any mass through it (breaking Elek symmetry), but unlike the ocean, it has no rest system. In a normal ocean if you are not at rest relative to the ocean, the ocean will resist any movement through it, accelerated or inertial, so a ship without a motive force will slow down and stop. The Higgs field only opposes mass in acceleration and not mass in inertial motion. Therefore, the Higgs field is a homogeneous and isotropic system, and a ship will encounter a force acting on it only in acceleration, but after it stops accelerating and will be at a constant speed, no force will act on it anymore and it will remain at the same constant speed, and this is in contrast to the ocean, which will exert a force on it even when it is at a constant speed, which is not the rest system of the ocean .

    Therefore, if the ether ocean is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic, then it does not have a certain rest system, just as the Higgs ocean does not have a certain rest system, and there is no certain velocity that can be measured relative to the ether, and this is the reason for the failure of the M-M experiment.

    And this is what Einstein meant (in my opinion) when he said that it is impossible without the ether, only that a certain rest system should not be attributed to it (link if there is demand).

  36. The two examples I gave are endless. In the example of the ocean, I did not write specifically, but of course I meant an infinite ocean (if it is not infinite, it is also not homogeneous, you can swim upwards until you suddenly reach the air). In the second example I specifically wrote that it is infinite and I also explained how to get it, it's strange that you just decided to ignore it.

    Listen, I don't know how to explain it more simply. I don't want to offend, but I have a strong feeling that you think about the term "rest system" intuitively and don't really realize what it means physically. The rest system of an infinite ocean is not "the earth", it is not any object. It is simply a choice of a system where the ocean has no three-dimensional momentum, that's all. It has nothing to do with the land or this or that island, it has nothing to do with the ocean being endless. Write down the density of water particles, which is homogeneous and isotropic, and check if it is possible to do a Lorentz transformation for a system in which the water has no linear momentum. This can easily be done in the two examples I gave, both homogeneous isotropic and infinite. And as I said, precisely in an inhomogeneous system this can create a problem because each part of the system will have a different local rest system.

  37. Albanzo

    "1. Funny, I gave you the answer to the first question a few weeks ago and you fight me tooth and nail over it. I explained to you that the special theory of relativity as formulated by Einstein in 1905 is an extension of classical mechanics and therefore explicitly contradicts quantum mechanics and in fact is only a first-order approximation of it (the classical approximation of quantum mechanics)'.

    I fought for the defense of special relativity? I am? Can I have a link?

    I must not have been understood.

    2. "People smarter than Maxwell have made more serious mistakes than him."

    Where is Maxwell's mistake? Did you even read his model?

    "3. No problem here. Precisely because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, it can be thought that it will have a rest system. For every massive system of particles a local rest system can be found. If the ether was not homogeneous, it would be possible to find a rest system for the ether particles in one region of the universe and it would be quite different from the rest system in another region. An absolute rest system will only be possible in a homogeneous universe. It is also not difficult to imagine such examples. For example, an ocean. Take an infinite ocean where the water is homogeneously and isotropically distributed and there is a rest system where there are no waves in the sea.'

    You forgot to add the first and most important condition of all: infinite. At least this was the belief in 1887 when an experiment was conducted from M.

    Is the ocean an infinite system? Can you give an example of an infinite system in general, and an infinite system in particular that has a rest system?

    The ocean you mentioned has a rest system, the earth. into the air in the plane the plane.

    But what resting system does the infinite ether ocean have? And if it exists, why exactly this one and not another?

    Avi, if you are reading, the changes you made to the site are not successful to say the least, and the errors are only increasing.

  38. Israel,

    1. Funny, I gave you the answer to the first question a few weeks ago and you fight me tooth and nail over it. I explained to you that the special theory of relativity as formulated by Einstein in 1905 is an extension of classical mechanics and therefore explicitly contradicts quantum mechanics and in fact is only a first order approximation of it (the classical approximation of quantum mechanics). After 1905 there were many more works on relativity, some by Einstein but most not, that distilled the ideas of special relativity down to its simplest mathematical structure, and then applied the same to quantum mechanics. What was obtained is the theory of quantum fields, which is both quantum and relativistic. If you look at private relativity as written in 1905 then yes, it is definitely only an approximation. But kill me if I understand why anyone should study the world around them *only* until 1905, and ignore the amount of knowledge that was accumulated after that, which I suppose will not surprise you to find out that it is many times greater than all the knowledge that was accumulated between Newton and Einstein (for a number of reasons, starting with technology that allows to do many more and much more complex experiments, technology that makes it possible to process information in a much better way, massive growth in the academic community in relation to the size of the world's population, etc.). I don't like digging through old comments, but I know you're good at it and usually manage to find quotes. I promise you that if you look at our last correspondence you will see that I explained to you that special relativity as Einstein formulated it in 1905 can be accepted as a classical approximation of quantum field theory (simply, this approximation can be thought of as taking the limit where Planck's constant is 0).

    2. There, not there, doesn't matter at all. Sorry, the whole bit you wrote in the middle about Maxwell not being some jerk is not relevant to the discussion in any way. People smarter than Maxwell have made more serious mistakes than him. His name does not buy him a single merit point and is not a reason to differentiate between the examples I gave you (in which an explicitly wrong theory gives a correct result) and your claim - that Maxwell's case is special. The preservation of the correct result can be explained simply by the existence of U(1) gauge symmetry in Maxwell's model as well, even though it is wrong. By the way, the examples I gave were Newtonian gravity (Newton is in no way inferior to Maxwell, so if his theory gives correct results even though it is wrong, why not Maxwell?), quantum scatterings (for example, the works of Born, who is also one of the great physicists of the 20th century XNUMX and a Nobel Prize winner). The other two examples are not really errors that someone made, but correct results that are obtained from being placed in a model that does not suit them, so they cannot really be attributed to a specific person.

    3. There is no problem here. Precisely because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, it can be thought that it would have a rest system. For every massive system of particles a local rest system can be found. If the ether was not homogeneous, it would be possible to find a rest system for the ether particles in one region of the universe and it would be quite different from the rest system in another region. An absolute rest system will only be possible in a homogeneous universe. It is also not difficult to imagine such examples. For example, an ocean. Take an infinite ocean where the water is homogeneously and isotropically distributed and there is a rest system where there are no waves in the sea. Another example (a little more complex) is to take a spherical shell that the universe is inside. The shell throws ether homogeneously and isotropically into the universe. At the limit where the shell is at an infinite distance from the universe (that is, the radius of the shell is infinite) you will get a homogeneous and isotropic distribution of ether (at any point in the universe you will get the same density of ether particles from all directions and of course it will be possible to find a rest system for them simply by imposing an algebraic condition.

  39. Miracles

    "The magnetic permeability is derived from the speed of light and the dielectric coefficient. Do 1 divide the speed of light squared by the electric coefficient... And see what you get.'

    The magnetic permeability and the dielectric coefficient were known even before Maxwell, and so was the speed of light. But no one before him linked the three phenomena to one phenomenon, using the site model.

  40. "But there is something that makes Maxwell's equations unique, for example, unlike Newton's laws that were updated by Einstein as approximations only, Maxwell's equations not only have not changed but are the main motive for writing the special theory of relativity..."

    The things, if you noticed, were said as a response to G who wrote:

    "If Maxwell's equations are correct, and there is an ether, then why do they fail to calculate blackbody radiation? They can't even predict the color of light from a simple light bulb. Why?"

    It may be possible to understand from his words that he claims that Maxwell's equations are incorrect, and I have come to correct this. Within the framework of the knowledge that Einstein had in 1905, Newton's laws are only approximations but not Maxwell's equations, they are perfect as they are. The special theory of relativity, which I always claim is not perfect, is built on Maxwell's equations which remained unchanged.

    So as I see it, there are two options:

    Maxwell's equations are perfect, and so is special relativity.

    They are only an approximation, as is special relativity.

    And if the second option is the right one - then what have we been arguing about here for 3 years?

    "You claim that the situation here is different from the various examples I gave of wrong theories that yield correct results, and I'm trying to understand based on what you say."

    To understand, you need to understand Maxwell's model.

    Let's start with the fact that Maxwell is not some anonymous amateur scientist, he is Maxwell, from the Newton Maxwell Einstein trilogy. And his theory is not some baseless esoteric theory designed to explain known phenomena, his model is a masterpiece whose conclusion, that electromagnetic waves advance at the speed of light, was not previously known, and this is in contrast to all the other models you mentioned that supposedly explain existing phenomena but do not predict significant new phenomena which turned out to be correct.

    Like him as the Einstein model who, apart from explaining existing phenomena, also predicted phenomena that were unknown such as the equivalence of mass and energy, the lengthening of time, an expanding universe and renewal.

    But Maxwell does more than that. Unlike Einstein who states postulate 2 but does not explain why (that is why it is a postulate - an axiom - and not a theorem), Maxwell explains in detail how he reaches his conclusions.

    I won't go into detail unless there is a demand, but the way he does it is so spectacular and logical, and this is in contrast to Ptolemy's epicals (why episcals?) or other models, which, as in the case of Bond's explanation of the con man Goldfinger, it is hard not to accept it.

    But Maxwell, in my opinion, made a mistake that everyone made at the time.

    I wrote here before that for me names like Maxwell, Lorentz or Newton, are like the Rebbe of Lubewitz for a believer with one difference: the believer believes that there is someone above them, for me they are the real thing.

    And so I think I probably have a mistake in what I'm about to say now, but I don't see where.

    Because if there is an ether, something that everyone believed in at the time, then why would it have a certain rest system? If the universe is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic, which everyone believed in 1887, then doesn't a certain rest system for the site contradict the assumption
    Homogeneity? If the Michelson-Morley experiment was "successful", and they would have found the rest system of the ether - then why this one? Where are the homogeneities and isotropics?

    And is it possible that Lorenz, Mach, Kelvin, Michelson and Morley missed such a glaring contradiction?

    Everything else follows from this.

  41. "But there is something that makes Maxwell's equations unique, for example, unlike Newton's laws that were updated by Einstein as approximations only, Maxwell's equations not only have not changed but are the main motive for writing the special theory of relativity..."

    When I read this sentence it seemed right to point out that just because a specific article by Einstein did not "update" Maxwell's equations as you say, it does not mean that they are not approximations. If you look at a theory that is more general, more advanced, more precise and more correct than special relativity (quantum electrodynamics), you see that these equations are indeed an approximation, and not just that they are an approximation - but they are exactly the same approximation as Newton's second law (which you bothered to point out that its status is different from of Maxwell's equations).

    I read what you said. And I understood. You claim that the situation here is different from the various examples I gave of wrong theories that yield correct results, and I'm trying to understand based on what you say. In the meantime, the only thing I understood from you that indicates something special is your claim that Maxwell's equations are not accepted as an approximation of other equations of more advanced Torah, and this is simply not true. Perhaps you only meant specifically that they are not accepted as an approximation of an equation that appears in Einstein's specific paper from 1905 and that is true, but clearly meaningless. It's like saying that someone who was convicted of theft this morning is different from the other thieves because, unlike them, he was not convicted of theft (until this morning)! To me this is very funny, so I assumed that you do not mean to claim that only in this particular article the equations are not approximations, but in general. And that is simply not true, you are welcome to open a book on QED and see for yourself.

    I do not have any problem. And I don't need to "always prove to everyone that only I know physics and everyone else is stupid". But physics is my job and when someone writes something wrong in an open forum, I think it's important to comment on it - either for him or for other people who read his comments. Regarding the fact that I "can't write two sentences in a row without cursing or insulting", you are just trying to discredit my character for not dealing with the allegations. In the previous response there was no curse and no insult. Before that there were insults (I don't think swearing), but what to do - when a person asks "is it possible for a correct result to be obtained from a wrong theory?" Then you answer him that yes, it is possible, and even explain how it can happen and give him a bunch of examples, and then he responds with "Look at the theory and tell me if it's possible", or in other words "I know that you just wrote me a detailed response that it is possible and even Expanding on the reasons and examples, but is it possible?", so yes - I feel a strong need to ask him to concentrate and make sure he reads what is written to him.

    But I'm not going to fight with you. You write things, your right. I write things, my right. Want to comment? take care Don't want, don't need. As mentioned, I don't want to fight about physics and I certainly don't want to fight about how you feel. I still have no idea why in this particular case the fact that a wrong model gives a good prediction is a miracle and in the other million models in which this happens it is not. As I wrote in a previous response, this correct result derives directly from a connection between electricity and magnetism that results from some calibration symmetry (U)1( for that matter), and it will be found in any model of electromagnetism that maintains this symmetry, no matter how wrong it is.

  42. Israel
    The magnetic permeability is derived from the speed of light and the dielectric coefficient. Do 1 divide the speed of light squared by the electric coefficient... And see what you get.

    Newton's second law is also exact, not an approximation. So what?

  43. Al Benzo

    I don't know if you read, or understood, what I'm saying about Maxwell's equations. So here is a quote:

    "Are they perfect? In certain situations yes. For example, you can use them to calculate the speed of light without observing defects like Remer or observing a rotating wheel like Piezo, but by measuring the constants of electricity and magnetism in the laboratory.'

    Doesn't this sentence mean that there are situations in which Maxwell's equations are not perfect, the same corrections you talked about in QED?
    Do you deny that there are situations through which you can get completely accurate results? For example, if we multiply the constants of electricity and magnetism, take out a root and raise to the power of minus one, won't we get exactly - but exactly - the speed of light?

    And didn't I agree with you that there are wrong models that temporarily produce correct predictions, but in my opinion Maxwell's model is different? Have you even read the Maxwell model? Maybe you're just running away from dealing with the fact that you always read half a sentence and jump to conclusions without even understanding what they're trying to tell you?

    What is your problem, this need to always prove to everyone that only you know physics and everyone else is stupid. Why can't you write two consecutive sentences without cursing or insulting.

    At Wookie we already know what the problem is. But what about you?

    G

    If we agree, then fine.

  44. Clarification: Maxwell's laws were not "changed" by Einstein in 1905, but there is another article or two in physics that came out since then. In particular, they have been completely changed by quantum mechanics.

  45. Israel,

    I am sorry to inform you, Maxwell's equations are accepted in QED (quantum electrodynamics, for which Feynman won the Nobel Prize together with Schwinger and Tomonga) only as a classical approximation. Quantum particles by definition do not fulfill them (the reference is of course not to special particles that are "quantums" but to particles on quantum scales) and they cannot be used to determine dynamics except in cases where the classical approximation is valid, just exactly like Newtonian mechanics. The relationship between Maxwell's equations and quantum electrodynamics is *the same* (both conceptually and mathematically) as the relationship between Newton's second law and quantum mechanics. Both are obtained as classical equations of motion, i.e. a minimum point of the phase in the quantum orbital interwave. Leave the fact that I didn't say anything at all about Ptolemy or compare him to Maxwell, it's just things you ran to in order not to face my claim: correct results in wrong theories is something that happens all the time in physics (and I even explained how it can happen, in particular by preservation of a certain symmetry between the "correct" and the incorrect model), therefore it is impossible to base a study or a physical claim on the fact that one result turns out to be correct. This is the reason why in science we look for an explanation for the whole of the phenomena, and not treat each result separately.

  46. Y, I just want to see that I understood your answer.. You wrote:

    In my opinion, Maxwell's website model can be expanded so that it also includes non-locality and even proposed such a model - an active website. Most likely I'm wrong of course.

    Simply put, this means that:

    1. The original site model is incorrect/partial (otherwise what is your interest in expanding it at all)
    2. Maybe it can be fixed so that it is not wrong/partial
    3. But most likely the repair will not succeed.

    Does it correctly summarize what you say (minus all kinds of introductions). Because if so, that's pretty much what I think and it answers your question.

  47. G

    Your response was pending and I only saw it now.

    Your question is legitimate and simple, but the answer is not so simple.

    First, let's see why Maxwell's site model is different in my opinion from other models.

    Albenzo showed me - as if I didn't know before - that even other, wrong models give correct results sometimes. One of the best known is Ptolemy's geocentric model, with which it was possible to predict eclipses despite being wrong. There are many others.

    But note that Ptolemy's model is not taught in school and Maxwell is. True, even the wrong Newton model is taught in school and is used every day in thousands of uses in engineering and technology.

    But there is something that makes Maxwell's equations unique, for example, unlike Newton's laws that were updated by Einstein as approximations only, Maxwell's equations not only did not change but are the main motive for writing the special theory of relativity as evidenced by the name of Einstein's article from 1905: "On the electrodynamics of bodies in motion".

    In the movie "Goldfinger" Goldfinger is an unparalleled and invincible rummy player. There are many models of gaining an advantage in card games. Counting, calculating, reading the opponent's facial expressions, and most of them are correct in that they give an advantage to the user.

    (I know this from personal experience. For 20 years I was a professional blackjack card reader, and today most Nevada and California casinos ban me from playing and my ugly face is forever stuck in the casinos' facial recognition system).

    Bond, James Bond, has a different hypothesis about Goldfinger's winning model. Goldfinger is simply deceiving as those who have seen the film will remember.

    So this is the difference in my opinion between the other models and the Maxwell model. When you read and understand it, you see that there is almost no chance that such a complex model is just a lucky coincidence like the Ptolemaic model.

    Just like when Bond catches Goldfinger's accomplice with the telescope and the radio, it's a slam dunk for the correctness of the deception theory.

    So you ask "Are you claiming to have a website?" No website? Is there magic in the world?'

    I don't know to what extent you have followed the discussions on relativity and non-locality that have been going on here and elsewhere in recent years. My claim is that non-locality and relativity cannot exist side by side, and that although there is no direct contradiction or proof of this yet, non-locality poses a difficult physical challenge, perhaps unbearably difficult, to the theory of relativity.

    In my opinion, Maxwell's website model can be expanded to include non-locality, and I even proposed such a model - an active website. The chances are that I'm wrong, of course, and there are also considerable indications of this, but I devote a lot of time and money to experiments that will confirm or disprove my idea (I mentioned one of them here).

    Matan says that he put his money where his mouth was, and even mentioned an amount of NIS 20,000 that he invested in experiments.

    I estimate that the weighted amount (including loss of working hours) that I invested in experiments exceeds half a million dollars.

    Now it's your turn.

  48. what happened wookie As soon as you had to face reality, did you change? After all, we gave you a chance to prove to me that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I don't understand, that I'm lying and all the other nicknames you like.

    So in the end it turns out that you don't understand physics at all, you don't know what the Maxwell model is, what is the difference between it and the other models..

    Where is your constant arrogant "I'll help you understand"? Where is your constant patronizing patronage?

    You will return to the General Staff. It's the only place where anyone even counts you, arrogant zero.

    And for those who are interested: there is a reason why Maxwell's equations are considered one of the greatest creations of the human spirit (although they are not exactly Maxwell's but a recycling of Gauss and Ampere). You won't find students walking around with Ptolemy's equations on their shirts, but Maxwell's yes, you can buy them on Amazon.

    Are they perfect? In certain situations yes. For example, you can use them to calculate the speed of light without observing defects like Remer or observing a rotating wheel like Piezo, but by measuring the constants of electricity and magnetism in the laboratory.

  49. Israel,

    Leave WD he doesn't deserve a comment, we all see who the baby is here in the story and it's not you.

  50. to the zero WALKING DEATH

    Science is not the place for insulting and petty comments like yours.

  51. Israel

    you are a baby Every time someone tells you something you don't like to hear, you immediately go into tilt and jump that he started with you and now in your infant world of principles you are obliged to show him.

    I'm sorry to tell you.
    on my ****
    I don't have time to waste on you.

    About people who haven't been stuck in the same spot for a decade because they think the sun shines for them from the place where the sun doesn't and refuse to listen to others and try to understand or learn from them, I'm still willing to try to invest energy in helping them. But you are not one of them.

  52. giving,

    I want to clarify an important thing that may be the one that confused you, you don't need to distinguish one specific tooth in the wheel! The whole section is a relative position of the teeth at each rotational speed!

    1. If at a certain rotational speed (RPM) light that exits a space between two teeth manages to return to the viewer's eye, then it will be true ***for any space between two teeth in a wheel***, light that exits through them will always manage to return to the viewer's eye !

    2. And if we slowly and gradually increase the speed of the rotation so that light coming back encounters a tooth that blocks its path ***then this will be true for every position in the wheel*** and from this moment the viewer will see darkness all the time!!

    3. And if we continue to gradually increase the speed and suddenly we see light again (as stated 50% of the time if the size of each tooth is equal to the size of the space between the teeth) then from this moment on at this speed we will always see light! And we will know ****that relatively speaking**** there was a transition of one single tooth and no more!

    Does this explanation make sense to you?

    The whole section is a relative position, and not a specific tooth distinction!

  53. Wookie, didn't you say you were going to let me go?

    I'm sure there are responders who urgently need your services. That you help them understand, that you explain to them what is being read, that you criticize them, that you condescend to them, that you tell them how difficult it is with them and how lucky they are that you are here to help.

    True, no one ever turns to you for advice or help, but what does it matter? Who are the facts important here? The main thing is that you can lift your nose up high and feel how superior you are to all the freckles.

    Because with you there is no such thing as a different opinion, you have been given the truth from above and anyone who dares to disagree with you is necessarily wrong and grace and hard to comprehend.

    But you are wrong. If you would for once peel off all self-righteousness from yourself and stop educating everyone here, and would be willing to stand up man to man for once without psychology and moral preaching, I would try to show you that you are not as smart as you think you are and that you are wrong on almost every subject, including the subject in which You are educating me with this article.

    Ready to take the challenge? Remember, no psychology, no adjectives, just logic and physics.

    You... you understand physics, right? You have no problem reading the Maxwell model I believe? You master hydrodynamics and differential equations of course?

  54. WALKING DEATH

    You are just a vile person

    The scientist - maybe consider simply not posting such comments?

  55. Israel

    Oh what a poor victim you are, pity you.

    You don't work for anyone, everyone here sees and understands exactly who and what you are.

  56. Oh well, it helps to understand, you were a fool and you will remain a fool.

    But as long as you let me go and lash out at other helpless victims with your condescending buffoonery - you're helping to understand, you, the retarded person, then fine.

    Back to General Staff orders.

  57. Israel

    'I actually believe that I understand what people are telling me.'

    This is your first problem. I already have hundreds of proofs that this is a baseless belief.
    The second is the cherry picking you do to things people tell you, which only exacerbates the first problem.

    Now since you ask so nicely then I will release you from the yoke and leave you to talk only to people who do not offend or challenge your warped and flawed self-concept.

  58. giving

    'Again I have one claim - you can sometimes see darkness and sometimes light, you can see flickering - but because it was so very fast 18,000 frames per second - there is no way you will recognize a single tooth that has passed! That's the whole story. The story.'

    I'll take that as the closest thing I'll get from you to an answer to the questions I asked you.

    So first of all you are right that no one is able to notice the transition of one tooth or another at the relevant speeds here.
    This should be the clearest hint for you that this is not what was done (and you have already been told several times that this is indeed not what was done).

    What you need to ask yourself is how do you understand that the light passes through one tooth without the need for a human being to notice the passing of one tooth. And that's exactly what we're trying to explain to you here.

    Try to think how you would understand, in this situation that you are not able to distinguish the position of the teeth at all, that the light is blocked by passing teeth.

  59. giving

    'Again I have one claim - you can sometimes see darkness and sometimes light, you can see flickering - but because it was so very fast 18,000 frames per second - there is no way you will recognize a single tooth that has passed! That's the whole story. The story.'

    I'll take that as the closest thing I'll get from you to an answer to the questions I asked you.

    So first of all you are right that no one is able to notice the transition of one tooth or another at the relevant speeds here.
    This should be the clearest hint for you that this is not what was done (and you have already been told several times that this is indeed not what was done).

    What you need to ask yourself is how do you understand that the light passes through one tooth without the need for a human being to notice the passing of one tooth. And that's exactly what we're trying to explain to you here.

    Try to think how you would understand, in this situation that you are not able to distinguish the position of the teeth at all, that the light is blocked by passing teeth.

  60. giving
    The matter of the time of the eclipse is not how long the eclipse was - but its time. Remer explained the phenomenon in which eclipses follow when Jupiter is far away compared to the times when Jupiter is close.

    1. The difference between the closest distance to Jupiter and the farthest distance to Jupiter is 300 million km. The ancient Greeks already knew this (surprisingly approximately).

    2. This distance is 1000 light seconds, that is - the distant eclipses are delayed by about 17 minutes.

    3. The measurements did show these traces.

    Note that the distance to justice is not important here. And also note that he didn't calculate how long the eclipse lasted - all that matters is the beginning of the eclipse.

    Regarding the piezo experiment - think about the following example: we will take 2 such gears and put them on one axis. We will do several experiments, in each experiment one wheel will be rotated relative to the other wheel by a fraction of a degree. Remember - a tooth covers a quarter up.

    1. When the overlap is full (tooth over tooth) - half of the light will pass.
    2. When a tooth exactly covers the gap - no light will pass. We circled a total of a quarter up.
    3. Let's rotate a tenth of a degree from position (2): now 40% of the light will pass.
    4. Rotate a hundred degrees from position (2): now only 4% of the light will pass.

    That is - we received a quite sensitive device for measuring an angle, with technology that existed in the 19th century.

    Matan - I do not understand what you are striving for. Let's leave the past behind. Do you not agree that the speed of light is 300 thousand km per second?

  61. So-and-so 321 - I disappeared because I spent many hours on it every day.
    (And it also bothers me that they publish all my messages only once in 24 hours)

  62. giving,

    Assuming that the size of the teeth in the wheel was the same as the size of the spaces between them, then if the speed of the wheel is such that light leaving a space between two teeth (and hitting the distant mirror) will manage to return and also pass through a space on its way back, this means that 50% of the time you will see light. Or if we follow the example of your cartoon, the film will have 9,000 consecutive images of light, then 9,000 consecutive images of darkness (when light trying to get out is blocked by a tooth of the wheel) and God forbid.

    And if you slowly increase the speed until every photon of light coming out of a space between two teeth hits the tooth on its way back and is blocked, then 100% of the time you will have darkness.

    And if you continue to gradually increase the speed of the wheel, it will again reach a speed where the returning photons will be able to pass through a gap (the gap that is immediately after the tooth that previously blocked the returning photons) and then you will again see light 50% of the time, and you will know for sure that there was a passage of a single tooth and no more.

  63. Hello Matan and welcome back,

    Regarding the measurement of the speed of light by the lunar eclipses of Jupiter Io, I am not sure about this but in my opinion you are right,

    (Similar to the two examples you gave, here is my own example: if someone flies in a spaceship to the sun, and right next to it deploys a huge fan that will hide the sun from us completely, let's say that we agreed with him in advance that the duration of time that the fan will be open is exactly 10 minutes, if we did not talk about the exact time at which will spread the fan but only on the duration, it will absolutely not help us to know the distance to the sun / the speed of light because the duration of time when the sun will be hidden from us will be exactly 10 minutes regardless of its distance from us)

    If I understand correctly, the measurement is based on the fact that the distance between us and Io changes *during the eclipse* i.e. if at the beginning of the eclipse the distance is X, at the end of the eclipse, when Io is revealed to our eyes again, its distance is already different by several hundreds of thousands of km and therefore the length of the eclipse will be long or short More in a second or two.

    The only thing that doesn't work for me is - a. You need to know the orbit of Jupiter and the orbits of its moons with enormous precision in order to notice a change of one second from the expected value (the duration of Io eclipses is not constant but varies approximately between 2.5 and 3.5 hours), I find it hard to believe that 350 years ago the orbits of Jupiter's moons were known with such great precision.

    B. It is difficult to say when the eclipse began and when it ended with such precision without cameras and telescopes from 300 years ago, because sometimes Io does not enter the shadow of Jupiter and disappear but continues to shine all the time and is only hidden by Jupiter itself, the problem is that when it approaches it and begins to cover By him it is very difficult to distinguish between them.

    I would also like to hear answers from those who understand the subject.

    Regarding the piezo experiment, (I'll start by saying that I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject, but I think I understood the explanations of the other commenters) I'll try to make it simple, the picture is like this: you're sitting on the ground, in front of you, a few meters away is a large gear wheel, behind you Shine a flashlight straight ahead at the cogwheel, and a few kilometers away from you beyond the cogwheel there is a mirror,

    The flashlight behind you turns on and what you see is a gear illuminated with light, dear ones, but also the place of the grooves - where there are no teeth - is "illuminated", because the light that passed through the grooves reached the mirror and returned from there back the same way straight to your eyes, so you will see a complete circle of light made up of the teeth which are lit directly by the flashlight and the slits through which you see the mirror that reflects the light that passed through the slits and hit her.

    Now someone tries to turn the gear, and it increases the speed slowly, at first you will not see any change because the light is so fast that it is enough to go to the mirror and return through the same crack it passed through, but at a certain point you will see that the amount of light dims a little because some of the light that came out through The slot has already encountered on its way back to the tooth adjacent to the slot from which it came out, as the speed increases, the light will get dimmer and dimmer until at a certain point it reaches a minimum, this will happen when the rotation speed is such that while the light travels to the mirror and returns, the gear wheel has had time to rotate so that it was where it was a million years ago The second slot is open, there is now a sealed tooth, and the light returning from the mirror encounters this tooth and will not reach my eyes, (of course I will still see light from the flashlight that illuminates the gear teeth directly, but the light that passed through the slots will not be returned to my eyes so that the overall amount of light will decrease, (this is only when The length of the teeth is equal to or greater than the length of the slots, otherwise not all the light will be blocked).

    You asked how I know that one tooth has moved and no more, the answer is that you increase the rotation speed very slowly and you see that the amount of light begins to decrease at a certain point until it reaches a minimum, then increases again continuously and God forbid. At the first minimum I know that at the current rotation speed, the tooth is sufficient to move exactly its own distance (if the length of the teeth and slots are equal) while the light reached the mirror and returned, when the amount of light returns to normal I know that the rotation speed at the moment is such that in the time it takes for the light to reach the mirror and return, the second slot has arrived To the place where it was first when the light came through, and again, slowly increase the speed, and you see that the amount of light changes continuously without jumps.

    Hope I was clear.

    (Just curiosity, did you stop responding because you were convinced or did you give up on convincing us?)

  64. I want to answer you, and I promise to answer you right after you answer what I asked you. And this is a simple question.. You wrote it right? "So if there is no site and the model is wrong - how did the calculation succeed?"
    Just that, what did you mean? Are you claiming to have a website? No website? Is there magic in the world? Can you explain it in simple words that even a child could understand?

  65. Wookie

    I actually believe that I understand what people are telling me.

    For example, the one you said a while ago that we should stop responding to each other. was i wrong show you where?

    I certainly respect the important task you have taken upon yourself to help people understand, just ask that you do not count me among the lucky ones you help them understand. are you.

    And I - I will somehow find people who will respond to me, but once again, thank you.

    G

    Maybe my question wasn't clear, so I'll repeat it:

    Are you saying Maxwell's equations are wrong?

    Please, just this.

  66. I did not understand. You wrote "So if there is no site and the model is wrong - how did the calculation work?"

    What do you claim in this sentence.. Is there a website? No website? Or are you just throwing points for thought?

  67. Israel

    If you've ever had or will doubt why people stop talking to you, you'll know that it's because you're trying not to understand or misunderstand what they're telling you (or at least make it seem that way).

  68. Albanzo

    Of course you were only talking about physics, as always. And this is me who wrote:

    "Please make an effort. concentrate Read what they write to you.'

    "If you want to deal with words and not physics, then please don't pretend."

    Pure physics, no doubt.

    And of course you didn't pay attention to what I was saying at all and you probably didn't look at the Maxwell model, and if you did you didn't understand the essential difference between it and the other incorrect models that temporarily produce correct results (Ptolemy, Phlogiston, etc.).

    We can treat you with a drop of respect and not like the pathetic brat you are, if you start standing behind what you say and don't immediately get personal.

    You will start by bringing the mathematical proof that you claim exists to the fact that no information passes between interwoven particles. The list goes on.

    You can, as always, apologize for your aggression and end it here. If you keep going, you'll get hit back like always.

    G

    "If Maxwell's equations are correct, and there is an ether, then why do they fail to calculate blackbody radiation? They can't even predict the color of light from a simple light bulb. Why?"

    I didn't understand, are you claiming that Maxwell's equations are incorrect? Can you say that clearly?

  69. what a joker Tell me, do you think there is someone here besides me and you who reads the comments and it was not clear to him that you would ignore everything I said (the fact that it happens all the time, the explanations for how it can happen, the many examples, and even the reference to symmetry in the specific problem in question) and instead just insult and accuse me of it That I'm "talking about education instead of physics", even though these three comments have more physics than all the comments you've written on the site in the last year?

    But like I said, go ahead. I hope it's clear to you that I really don't care what you think and that I have no interest in convincing you. I wrote the comments just in case someone watching from the side might think there might be something to the point you're making, and it seems to me that it's pretty clear now.

  70. If Maxwell's equations are correct, and there is a site, then why do they fail to calculate blackbody radiation? They can't even predict the color of light from a simple light bulb. Why?

    Temporary glitch on the website, we'll be right back?

    A spell cast by the evil wizard Plank?

    Catastrophe over virtue?

    Something to think about.

  71. Albanzo

    I see you're back to education again instead of talking physics. as you please.

    If you concentrate and read what they write to you, you can read the Maxwell model from the link I provided. Then you might be able to see the difference between this complex and subtle model and models such as the Ptolemaic model or the primordial atom model.

  72. I posted early before 2 comments about Piso. Please review.

    Another thing, someone brought up Ole Remer about measuring the speed of light based on the moon Io orbiting Jupiter.

    I really want to raise a question honestly and without teasing:
    We start from the assumption that the eclipse of Io is always the same local time, simply our distance from Jupiter changes and therefore there is a difference of 22 minutes in the eclipse, and this is how the speed of light was calculated.
    I asked - does it matter what our distance is from Jupiter? If Io's eclipse is a fixed X time, then the further away you are you will see the eclipse at a later time but still the eclipse will be X time.
    I will give 2 examples -
    1. In the past when we spoke on the phone with someone abroad there was a delay of say 2 seconds. If someone in the US talks for 10 seconds, then you'll start hearing them after 2 seconds, but you'll still hear them for 10 seconds.
    2. Let's say the sun does a 10 second super nova (just for the example). If we are in Israel we will see it after 8 minutes but we will still see the explosion for 10 seconds. And if someone is right then he will see it after 40 minutes but will still see the explosion for 10 seconds.
    Therefore, I would appreciate an explanation of what it means no matter what our distance from Jupiter is, if we start from the assumption that the eclipse of Io around Jupiter is constant.
    Really an honest question.
    giving

  73. Perhaps in my previous response I did not give enough intuition to how such things can happen, so it is still a wonder for you and therefore you are not convinced. So in addition to the examples I gave earlier, I will add a short explanation.

    Every mathematical model or system has a collection of properties that define it. The objects it contains, the connections between them, etc. Sometimes there may be two different models (for the sake of it, one of them is "correct" and the other is not, and it is clear that when I say "correct" it is only meant in a certain context, as far as we know, according to the known observations, etc.) that share some of the features. Therefore, results that are directly derived from a feature (or set of features) that the models share will be the same in both models, and even the one that is not "correct" will provide a "correct" answer. For example, most of the properties attributed to the speed of light (being an upper limit to the speed of any massive body, being the only speed at which a massless particle can move, a multitude of connections between it and electromagnetism) derive from a simple symmetry of the theory of relativity. A different model, even if it is completely wrong, can also maintain the same symmetry and therefore at least some of these properties will also exist within it.

    This is not the only explanation for a wrong model producing correct results, but it is quite simple and relevant in this case. Again, it is not by chance that the scientific method only looks for models that can explain all phenomena. Partial explanations (that fit certain phenomena, even with masterly precision) are like water in the sea.

  74. Israel,

    Please make an effort. concentrate Read what they write to you.

    Yes, it is possible for a wrong model to give a correct result. It happens all the time. It doesn't have to be a coincidence (sometimes it is): it could be two errors in the model that offset each other, it could be that the model's error was not exactly reflected in the specific question asked, it could happen for a variety of reasons. It happens all the time and you even received examples of this, to me even more impressive.

    It really doesn't matter what Einstein said. But if you want to deal with words and not physics, then please don't pretend you don't know that Einstein talked about space having physical properties (in particular, energy density). It is not a site like Maxwell's site located in space. is the space itself. But I'm really not interested in making a quote and interpretation war with you. Believe what you want. You asked a question, you got an answer. Correct results in incorrect models is something scientists encounter every day. Successfully.

  75. Albanzo.

    Please go through the model up to equation 136 where Maxwell deduces the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism, and tell me if such an unbelievable coincidence is possible.

    In the past, the claim was heard here that Maxwell already knew in advance that he would get the speed of light from the model, and he only marked the target instead of the arrow's impact. Maxwell himself denied this, claiming that he was surprised when he discovered that the speed of a wave at his site was the speed of light.

    But why go far? Einstein himself said that without the site relativity is not possible, only that a defined rest system should not be attributed to it (link if there is demand).

  76. Israel,

    The phenomenon where an incorrect theory leads to a certain result that is indeed correct is not uncommon. That's why in science we look for a theory that explains the *complexity* of the phenomena and not something specific. There are many examples, for example the correct relation between the mass of a black hole and its radius in classical physics (ignoring general relativity), even though we know from experiment that Newtonian gravity is a wrong theory that simply makes incorrect predictions. There are certain scattering results that quantum mechanics predicts with high accuracy even though it is not relativistic and again, there are experiments that show that it gives really wrong predictions in some cases. There are also more mathematical examples, such as the fact that development with a large N parameter (it is not important at the moment who exactly N is, it is related to how much symmetry there is in a quantum system) gives good results even for N=3 or that the placement of q=2 is an engineering column (which of course does not converge for Values ​​greater than 1) gives exactly the correct result of the regularization of the column.

  77. When surfing through a smartphone, the article and the comments jump up and down every moment and it's really crazy.

    Recent comments many times do not really show the latest comments and there are also duplicates in the display (the same message appears several times) and the rectangle that shows the latest comments already on the main page is very missing.

    In my opinion, there is also a display next to each article on the main page that shows how many comments it has.

    But the jumping of the page is really crazy and must be solved (it is caused by the running subtitle at the top of the page).

    Is Avi Blizovsky even aware of these problems? Is anyone out there trying to address this?

  78. I read everyone's comments.

    Again I have one claim - you can see sometimes darkness and sometimes light, you can see flickering - but because it was so very fast 18,000 frames per second - there is no way you will recognize a single tooth that has passed! That's the whole story.

    Take for example a Disney animated video with 18,000 cartoon images of a princess per second,
    If I show you 1 picture (out of 18,000 per second) of something else, for example a tower, will you recognize the tower? Definately not. That's a time of 0.00005 seconds
    If I show you 10 consecutive pictures of something else, for example a tower, will you recognize the tower? Definately not. That's a time of 0.0005 seconds
    If I show you 100 consecutive pictures of something else, for example a tower, will you recognize it? borderline I believe most likely not. It's a time of 0.005 seconds. That's 5 milliseconds.
    If I show you 1000 consecutive pictures (out of 18,000 per second) of something else, for example a tower, will you recognize it? Yes, we will begin to recognize that it is 5 hundredths of a second, and the eye can distinguish it.

    now let's continue,
    If I put you 1 picture (out of 18,000 per second) of a tower, then 1 picture of a princess, then 1 picture of a tower, then 1 picture of a princess, and God forbid - what will we recognize?

    Our eye will sometimes see a tower and sometimes a princess, but again (!!!!!) you won't be able to tell how much time has passed between 1 princess and 1 tower! Your eye cannot pick up times of 0.00005 seconds

    And that's the whole story.
    And again I say for the millionth time - the 1st tooth is critical because if 2 teeth were mistakenly passed - then the speed is only 150,000 km per second.

  79. And to spoil the joy, my constant question:

    Piezo calculated the speed of light through an experiment. Maxwell, years after Piezo's experiment, calculated the speed of electromagnetic waves using a hydrodynamic model of the ether, and to his surprise he discovered that it was the speed of light that Piezo had found.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

    So if there is no site and the model is wrong - how did the calculation succeed?

    Good guess?

    magic?

    spell?

  80. Once again the details are not saved and the articles pop up on the iPhone..

    Abby, what was wrong with the old format, where you could also see all the comments on the right?

  81. Miracles,

    This is exactly what I wrote in my description, that as soon as you increase the speed of rotation (after we first saw light) and see darkness, then you know for sure that it is the tooth that immediately after the slot through which the light returned first, and when the speed increases and again you see flashes of light, then you know that it is the slot that is immediately after the previous slot that we saw light through it.

  82. rival

    Yes, the problem here is to try to explain to Matan in a way that he will understand. He for some reason thinks that it is necessary to observe the teeth and notice one specific tooth in some way during the experiment.

  83. rival
    Yes you are right. The idea I wanted to emphasize is that if you start slowly and speed up, then you can tell that what is blocking is the tooth closest to the slot. That is - in this way, the result is one-one-valued.

  84. Israel
    Let's say 10 rounds per second. There are 720 teeth, so the time between tooth and slot is 1 divided by 14400.
    If you turn the wheel (of course, perpendicular to the rotation axis) - this time will not change.

  85. Nissim, WD and Israel Shapira,

    Yes, it is clear that at a low rotational speed the light can exit and return through the same slot, but if the wheel speed increases and the light already returns through another slot, then my description of the method of calculation is quite accurate, isn't it?

  86. In my opinion, Piso could have performed the experiment with the mirror closer, and that is by placing the wheel diagonally, which would reduce the width of the grooves.

    But there is a limit to this because of the explosion.

  87. for everyone
    I understand very well what everyone is saying, and again I have no argument about the majority.
    See an amazing video of a soap bubble at 18,000 frames per second.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvZ2Z_s4Bo

    At 00:43 he inflates the soap balloon and after a fraction of time explodes.
    Go to the time of 01:14 - how beautiful and how slowly you see in 18,000 frames. How much visual information can you distinguish at all stages of the explosion of the balloon.
    Go back again to the time of 00:43 - can you recognize anything at all? You see the balloon explode and that's it. Nothing you can see in such a short time.

    now,
    Look at the fact that Pizzo saw 1 frame out of 18,000 frames!
    Does it make sense to you????
    You understand what I'm saying again - if he saw only 2 frames out of the 18,000 frames, then the speed is already only 150,000!
    You wrote about light passing through slots 41, 42, 43 - again I translate this for you to frame 41 out of 18,000, frame 42 out of 18,000, etc. Does it make sense for someone to recognize?
    Suri - human eyes cannot distinguish it!

  88. rival
    Israel explained correctly. At first the wheel turns slowly, and of course the light is enough to exit and return through the same slot. Pizou already had an estimate of the speed of light from Remer's findings, 180 years before his experiments.

    Let's look at numbers for a moment. A range of 17,266 meters is time - that is, 57.8 microseconds (light travels 300 meters per microsecond.
    There are 720 teeth (and slots), and we want the slot-to-tooth time to be 57.8 microns. We will get - a round in 83.2 milliseconds. That's almost a tenth of a second!
    So the speed of the servo that Pizzo needed is 721 rpm. It's nothing….. If a few simple gears, it's easy to reach such a speed by hand. Piso used a system built by a man named Fromman, who was a clock - and capable of turning hundreds of revolutions per second.

    To make sure - Piso increased the speed more, and saw that at 1442 rpm, they again saw the light well.

    This discussion can be summarized: Piso is a genius, Matan ….. not exactly….
    And by the way - cutting 720 teeth with a brass disc is also very easy.

  89. Of course, but in the video the teeth occupy about 90%..

    The conclusion - that one slot is enough for the experiment and the rest of the wheel is a tooth - completely collapses the argument of seeing the single tooth.

  90. Israel

    Regarding section 3. Total disappearance of the light depends on the gear. If the teeth occupy fifty percent or more of the area of ​​the teeth and spaces, then there will be disappearance if not just dimming.

  91. rival

    The video is indeed inaccurate - but not for the reasons you mentioned.

    1. Piezo did not refer to Maxwell's writings for conducting the experiment - on the contrary, Maxwell used the results of Piezo's experiment in his article from 1861 in which he showed that light is an electromagnetic wave.

    2. The lamp in the video is on the right side, as it was in the experiment.

    3. Not at every rotation speed of the wheel will the light appear, at certain speeds it will disappear.

    4. In the original Piezo experiment, the width of the teeth and slots are the same, but in the video the teeth are much wider than the slots.

    5. There is no need for the light that passed through slot 41 to return through slot 42. At slow rotation speeds, it returns through slot 41, and the light that passed through 42 also returns through 42.

    This is enough to measure the speed of light. Passing through the following slits - light that passed through 41 returns through 42, 43, and so on - only confirms the measurement results.

    It is therefore seen that in order to measure the speed of light, only one slit is sufficient, only its width determines. The large number of slots is to increase the intensity of the light and ease calculations.

  92. rival

    The video does not correctly reflect the Piezo experiment, but for reasons other than those you mentioned:

    1. Piso did not consult Maxwell's writings for the purpose of the experiment - the opposite is true. Maxwell used the results of Piezo's experiment in an 1861 paper in which he concluded that light is an electromagnetic wave.

    2. The lamp in the video is on the right side, as in the experiment.

    3. Not at every rotational speed you see light, at certain speeds the light disappears.

    4. In the original wheel, the distance between the teeth and the grooves is the same, unlike in the video where the teeth are much larger than the gaps.

    5. There is no need for the light that passed through slot 41 to return through slot 42, it returns through the same slot - 41 - and the light that passed through slot 42 also returns through slot 42.

    This is enough to measure the speed of light. When the light passes through the next slit - or the one after that - you only get confirmation of what has already been measured.

    So you see that in fact only one slot is enough for the experiment, what is important is its width. The large number of slots and teeth is only to increase the intensity of the absorbed light and ease the calculations.

  93. giving,

    The experiment you see in the video is confusing and does not correctly reflect Piso's experiment. The problem in the video is that light is constantly coming from the direction of the page (the page is like a light source) and therefore you see it all the time at any rotation speed of the wheel, in Piezo's experiment, on the other hand, the light source was located on the other side of the wheel (it could even be sunlight reflected from a mirror) i.e. On our side the viewers.

    I will explain to you how I understand the experiment and if I am wrong, please correct me:

    1. Piezo turns the wheel at a certain speed (say 1000 rpm, I just threw a number) and sees darkness.

    2. He gradually increases the rotation speed of the wheel until suddenly he sees flashes of light, say at 1200 rpm. That is, he knows that the light exited through one of the slits when it was located exactly in front of his light source, and was able to return back through another slit, no matter which one, let's say slit 41 if it is determined that the slit through which the light exited is slit 0.

    3. Piezo continues to gradually increase the rotation speed until he sees darkness again, meaning that the returning light now encounters the metal that is immediately after the previous slot (slot 41) through which the returning light was able to enter and reach Piezo's examining eye.

    4. Piezo gradually increases the rotation speed until at a speed of 1270 rpm he again notices flashes of light, which means he knows that at this speed there was a passage of one single tooth, and that the returning light was now able to enter through slot 42.

    5. Piezo calculates how long it takes for two adjacent slots in the wheel to switch places at this speed (that is, how much time passes from the moment any slot is in front of the viewer, until the next slot is in front of him).

    6. Now the piezo has a distance (the distance between the light source and the distant mirror, multiplied by 2 because it's a round trip) and it also has the time of rotation between two adjacent slots, a simple calculation of time fractions gives it speed.

  94. giving

    Usually they say the boss is Adi, but it's nice that you aimed to know the elders.

    Full disclosure: On Yom Kippur in the synagogue I hear many people say to me: Hear, Israel - You are the Lord our God, one God!

    To save all the vajras:

    You ask how Piso noticed one tooth in the experiment.

    So if you take a piezo device where the teeth are so small that you can't see them without a microscope - then it won't be possible to measure the speed of light using the device?

    And if the answer is yes - then what is the relevance of seeing one tooth for the experiment if it cannot be seen anyway?

  95. giving

    Well, I understand that you did not understand the explanation at all. I will try again and ask a question to try to understand what you did not understand.

    It seems to me at the moment that it is most likely that you did not understand what the experimenter sees at all and what he observes in the experiment. Please answer all the questions so that we can understand together the point of misunderstanding.

    a) When we perform the experiment the light will either hit the gear wheel (some tooth) and block it in the outgoing direction or pass once through the gear wheel (through some gap) will hit the mirror and make its way back, then again either pass through the gear wheel or hit the gear wheel and block it Inbound?
    1) Right?
    2) Understood?

    b) At low speed there is light that is blocked on the way out and the light that goes out and is not blocked will be enough to return through the same gap?
    1) right?
    2) Understood?

    c) If the teeth and spaces are the same size, half of the light will always be in their ratio and half will come out on the way out?
    1) Right?
    2) Understood?

    d) When we increase the speed, at a certain point some of this light that goes out and is not blocked on the way out, will be blocked by the gear wheel on the way back.
    1) Right?
    2) Understood?

    e) Starting with a very low rotation speed, an observer looking at the gear wheel is not able to distinguish any teeth at all.
    1) right?
    2) What does he see when he looks at the point on the gear wheel through which the light passes?

  96. WD
    Believe me I am sharp and consistent in everything I say.
    I've said it many times, I have no problem with the method, and I've said it many times, the numbers work out great! I understand that he constantly increases the speed of the wheel. I have no claim to that either.
    My question about this experiment is how did it detect a human eye in 1 tooth (out of 18,744 teeth passed per second) or in 0.000053 time.
    That's my mantra from the first post until now. Israel Shapira is a witness.

    And you - you go round and round. Are you a lawyer by any chance?
    In the first message to you on March 1st:
    "Hence, all that is needed is to follow the dimming and shining of the light and there is no need to distinguish the teeth at all"

    And now you renovate in a message on March 2:
    "What allowed him to distinguish, thanks to the dimming of the light due to the blocking of the light on the way back by the teeth, when it was the passage of one tooth"

    That is,
    WD claims he did notice 1 tooth.

    Now for our cause,

    My only claim that he could not distinguish 1 tooth with a human eye. And again, if it was by mistake 2 teeth, then the speed is only 150,000 km per second.

    Let's analyze the video you sent me (which I know of course) - I'm not analyzing what the guy says, but only the rotation of the teeth:
    At 02:00 you see the wheel - 12 teeth
    At time 02:08 you see that the wheel is turning. I don't know how to extend how many rounds per second but let's say I'm Larg with you 10 rounds per second (no chance but I'm Larg with you)
    That is, we are talking about 120 teeth that pass per second.

    Now, go to the time of 02:08-02:09 (at 02:10 it is already slowing down) -
    Focus on the green arrow - can you tell me how many teeth pass each blink above the green arrow? (ie in a time of 0.1 second (we said there are 10 rounds per second))?
    You see the green arrow, I didn't say no, can you tell me how many teeth went through in one blink? in one round? This is pure guesswork!!! guesses!!
    That is, at 120 teeth for 1 second it is difficult for you to tell how many teeth passed over the green arrow in every blink or every turn. In the video, each tooth passes a time of 0.008 second.

    Now, divide 18,744 teeth by 120 teeth - 156.2 comes out.
    That is, Piso saw this reality 156 times faster!!!!
    So you want to tell me that with this video we can hardly determine how many teeth (each tooth moves 0.10 seconds.), and Piso saw with his human eye 156 times more teeth and noticed a change/difference of 1 tooth in a time of 0.000053 seconds?
    Sharpens again for the millionth time - with Piso he sees in 1 hole, and in 1 tooth he doesn't see, in 1 hole he sees. (I'm writing this in the language of a 10-year-old child who will understand and not your quibbles about "distinguishing thanks to the dimming of the light due to the blocking of the light on the way back by the teeth, when it was the passage of one tooth")
    Ok? Writes again - he sees 1 hole, and in 1 tooth he doesn't see, in 1 hole he sees.
    So you want to tell me that he could at the end of the process (slowly increase the speed of the wheel) until he noticed 1 tooth? I showed earlier in the video you attached that you or Nissim or Israel or any other human being can hardly notice how many teeth move - in the video every 1 tooth moves for a time of 0.008 of a second.
    So you want to tell me that Pizzo noticed 156 times faster? In the time of 1 tooth in the time of 0.000053?

    Haha - and I'm the crazy one. There is no way in the world!

  97. Miracles

    Baby steps.

    Maximum in the worst case we may have helped someone else who is able to look beyond this pit of ignorance and stupidity that washes large parts of the world.

  98. WD
    Matan explained that the rotation of the plane of the pendulum is due to the fact that it hangs on a flexible cable. I have seen a number of such shakeups (at the Smithsonian in DC and at a church in Bologna, at UNSW in Australia - and two in Israel). They all hang on a steel cable. It's nice to see that in Sydney it rotates upside down 🙂 (it doesn't have any mechanical mechanism, and it oscillates for several hours at a time - and always 7 degrees per second).

    I explained to him that when flying high the horizon line lowers, in a measured way that is not related to seeing. He claims that the reason is fog.

    I explained to him that from above on Mauna Kea you can see the volcano on Maui (Haliakala) - and you can clearly see the summit but not the base.

    I explained to him that the Golden Bridge towers are perpendicular - but not parallel. He ignores.

    I explained to him that GPS is picked up in the middle of the sea, but he insists that the police prepare according to cellular antennas (doesn't belong and is usually not true).

    I explained to him that it is impossible to predict solar eclipses without assuming that the world is round - he ignores it.

    I explained to him about the Tesla video.

    Matan claims that Stephen Hawking is bluffing and is not sick. He claims that the Challenger and Columbia accidents were not called.

    Do you really think the piezo experiment has anything to do with it? Every radar is based on the value of the speed of light - the problem is that it contradicts its "belief". Therefore - anyone who claims that the speed of light is c, in Matan's twisted world, is a liar.

    There are nice crazy people here on the site, so why discuss with an evil and twisted one?

  99. WD
    Matan explained that the rotation of the plane of the pendulum is due to the fact that it hangs on a flexible cable. I have seen a number of such shakeups (at the Smithsonian in DC and at a church in Bologna, at UNSW in Australia - and two in Israel). They all hang on a steel cable. It's nice to see that in Sydney it rotates upside down 🙂 (it doesn't have any mechanical mechanism, and it oscillates for several hours at a time - and always 7 degrees per second).

    I explained to him that when flying high the horizon line lowers, in a measured way that is not related to seeing. He claims that the reason is fog.

    I explained to him that from above on Mauna Kea you can see the volcano on Maui (Haliakala) - and you can clearly see the summit but not the base.

    I explained to him that the Golden Bridge towers are perpendicular - but not parallel. He ignores.

    I explained to him that GPS is picked up in the middle of the sea, but he insists that the police prepare according to cellular antennas (doesn't belong and is usually not true).

    I explained to him that it is impossible to predict solar eclipses without assuming that the world is round - he ignores it.

    I explained to him about the Tesla video.

    Matan claims that Stephen Hawking is bluffing and is not sick. He claims that the Challenger and Columbia accidents were not called.

    Do you really think the piezo experiment has anything to do with it? Every radar is based on the value of the speed of light - the problem is that it contradicts its "belief". Therefore - anyone who claims that the speed of light is c, in Matan's twisted world, is a liar.

    There are nice crazy people here on the site, so why discuss with an evil and twisted one?

  100. Miracles

    Maybe, but it seems to me that it's still worth trying to help people understand where they seem to be lacking in understanding and that a simple correction of an error or misconception can change that. That's why I pointed specifically to Piso's experiment and Foucault's pendulum because it seems that there he really misunderstood the principle of the experiment.

  101. Another point for those who think that all space missions are fake and that no spaceship or satellite has left the earth:

    The Soviet Union and Russia sent 19 spacecraft to Mars over the years, including very advanced and ambitious spacecraft for their time, including orbiters, landers, rovers, and more, all of them until the last one failed in their mission, some exploded on launch, some failed to leave orbit around the Earth or were lost in space, and even those that succeeded To get to Mars they crashed on it or lost contact with them very shortly after landing. (The USA succeeded and succeeded and sent quite a few spaceships to Mars, today by the way there are 6 orbits around it if I remember correctly and 2 more rovers wandering around the surface)

    If all the spaceships are inventions and graphics, why didn't Russia fake this way too??? This is a fatal blow to her national honor, 19 failures and even one success!!! How did she agree to admit it? Everyone is faking and only she isn't???

  102. WD
    On the contrary! I wanted to show that the Piezo experiment data are not unusual.

    The problem of Matan being a pathological liar. He will tell you that when you enlarge a picture of a ship beyond the horizon - you see the whole ship.

    And he is even more stupid….. I find no interest in debating with liars who are stupid

  103. giving

    First of all, you don't have to play games I think, Piso's numbers in the experiment were:

    Distance traveled by light = 2d
    Transit time = 1/2nN
    Speed ​​of light (c) = 4nNd

    Fizeau's values ​​were:
    2d = 17.26 km, N = 720, n = 12.6 revs per second, giving a value of 3.13 x 108 ms-1 for the speed of light.

    Secondly, I'm not sure that I can explain it better than I did in my response (or if anyone else can at all) and it's really hard for me to understand if you read and really tried to understand my response considering that you left it with the fact that the description is amazing and from there you jumped to all kinds of points that are not really related to it And hints that you didn't understand her.

    I will still try to address your response. And I will try to help you understand again.

    'Of course the number of teeth is important'

    Who said no?

    The number of teeth that pass while the light is making its way to the mirror and back is extremely important to the calculation. This is precisely why it was so important to make sure that it was the transition of exactly one tooth. (Of course, later you can expect and do the calculation for additional transitions, but it is less important to go into it)

    What is "following the dimming and shining"? What is tracking?'

    To follow in this case is to watch with the eye. That's what he had at the time, and it definitely hurt his accuracy.

    If you look here -

    https://youtu.be/h_UMabvPrws?t=119

    You will see that when you look through the serrated part when he turns it you see the page dimly behind. (This informational video in my rules has no inaccuracies, so it's a bit annoying, but it's conceptually fine)

    'So how do you tell me that -
    "From here all that is needed is to follow the dimming and shining of the light and there is no need to distinguish the teeth at all"'

    Because if you had eagerly read my response, you should have understood from it that he made sure that the measurement was one tooth over and here your next question is indeed very correct and important.

    'How did Piso prove that she lost 1 tooth?'

    That was basically the whole point of my comment. to clarify this point. And as I wrote earlier, the answer is that he increased the speed gradually, which allowed him to distinguish thanks to the dimming of the light due to the obstruction of the light on the way back by the teeth, when it was the passage of one tooth. It was the gradual increase from speed to a faster speed and so on that made it possible to confirm that it was a transition of one tooth and not suddenly two or three.

    Now please try to read my previous comment again in a real attempt to understand it and not in an attempt to skim over it and repeat questions about problems that don't exist. If you don't understand, at least try to help me understand what you don't understand in the explanation by asking relevant questions and not by trying to present to me what you think is the problem in the experiment.

  104. giving

    The speed of light can be measured using a piezo experiment even if the two are so small that they cannot be seen without a microscope when the wheel is at rest, let alone moving.

  105. WD
    I'm still here…..
    You will understand, the description you wrote is amazing, and the mathematical numbers of this experiment are also amazing and work out great!
    But where is the "really-small" problem?
    Of course the number of teeth is important!
    1 shifted tooth is equal to a speed of 313,000 km per second.
    2 teeth that have moved are equal to a speed of 150,000 km per second!! (Approximately)
    3 teeth that have moved are equal to a speed of 100,000 km per second!! (Approximately)

    The speed he determined according to the mathematical calculations, 313,000 km per second, also according to the calculations only 1 tooth should pass!
    Let me show you the "amazing" math that works out:

    Level A:
    Let's count how many gears move per second:
    Given 720 teeth
    Given 1562 RPM
    revolutions per second
    60 / 1562 = 26 rounds per second

    26*720 = 18,744 teeth moved in one second!

    stage B:
    It reached a speed of 313,000 km per second based on what you allegedly wrote down.
    Let's count how much time has passed:
    V = S / T
    T= 16/313,000 = = approximately 0.000053 sec
    Step C:
    We said that 18,744 teeth pass per second.
    Let's see how many gears go through in 0.000053 seconds:
    18,744*0.000053
    0.993 = approximately = 1 tooth!

    Step D:
    Let's say that 2 teeth passed (meaning the light passed through the hole, 2 teeth passed, and the light returned through the hole).
    Let's recalculate:
    18,744*0.000106
    = 2 teeth!
    We will return to the velocity and then we will accept that the velocity is
    V = S / T
    V=16/0.000106
    V= 150,000 km/sec (approx)
    That is, if 2 teeth have passed, then the speed is half - 150,000 km per second

    So how do you tell me that -
    "Hence, all that is needed is to follow the dimming and shining of the light and there is no need to distinguish the teeth at all"
    What is "following the dimming and shining"? What is tracking?
    What is the empirical measure that it measures?
    And I showed you in math that passed 1 tooth. How did Piso prove that she had 1 tooth?

    In this whole experiment, the main variable is the teeth - the number of teeth that go through changes - the speed changes.

    Therefore, of course he should notice the teeth!!!! After all, I proved to you above - every tooth that is added the speed is small!

    giving

  106. Miracles

    I tried to explain to Matan why it is not necessary to notice a certain tooth that moves at a very high speed in the experiment as he thinks (or at least he seems to think).

    The experiment is completely brilliant and completely practical.

    It is not clear to me if and why you got the impression that I meant to say that it is impractical.

  107. Theoretically, at a certain rotational speed the light will disappear completely and this is indeed what happens if the teeth are larger than the gaps by a certain amount.

    But because of the deflection, in the original piezo experiment where the size of the teeth and spaces are more or less the same, there is always a leakage of light, but this still does not prevent a fairly accurate calculation of the speed of light even by simple means.

    What I tried to test in an experiment I conducted a few years ago was the idea that light travels at more than one speed. I won't go into details, but because of the same deflection and quantum effects I couldn't get a "slam dunk" here or there (I got an almost perfect slam dunk in another experiment, quite interesting).

    In the same variation of the piezo experiment, I was saved by a miracle when the gear wheel that I was rotating at a speed of about 20,000 rpm, simply cut in half because of the centrifugal force, and half of it that passed about half a meter from me cut the nearby metal door. A scary event, but what is not done for the sake of science?

  108. WD
    If you start turning the gear counterclockwise, and increase more and more, the light intensity will decrease to a minimum and start to increase again until the maximum, after that it will again decrease to a minimum and so on.

    Let's take 50 revolutions per second and 100 teeth. The time from hole to tooth is 100 microseconds. It's round trip time, and the light moves 150 meters in each micro (round trip). That is - a total range of 15 km for the example I gave.

    Therefore - the experiment of the genius Piso is very practical.

  109. giving

    Sorry for the late response and hope you read it.

    Since no one has given you an explanation for the Piso matter, I will make an effort to explain in a simple way.

    Piso did not need to see or count a single tooth.

    How did he know that the light passes through one tooth on the way out and returns from the next one on the way back?

    The principle is like this.
    He started turning the gear at a slow speed and over time increased speed. The thing after him is due to the intensity of the light he saw back. (This is about light that is dimmed by the cogwheel because part of the time the light passes (when it is between the teeth) and part of the time it does not (when the outgoing beam hits the teeth), and at no point is this a question of a complete lack of light or of lighting whose intensity is the same as the intensity of the source without interruption)

    As long as the speed is not high enough, the light is enough to exit and return through the same space between the teeth.

    When the speed is high enough, some of the outgoing light fails to return because on the way back it encounters a tooth. The result of this is that the light becomes dimmer. Why?

    The amount of light coming out through the spaces between the teeth remains the same. Either the light hits the tooth and does not return or it passes in intervals.

    So the question arises what happens with the light that came out.
    It can either get stuck in the tooth on the way back or come back through a gap.
    If it passes through a gap we shine with the same dimness of the lighting.
    If it encounters a tooth on the way back, we get less light that manages to return, which manifests itself in dimmer lighting.

    Because we started with a low speed and increased it and we know that at first the light returning does so through the same gap from which it came out and that when the light returns to be brighter as before it is because it passes back through the adjacent gap (therefore beyond one tooth).

    How do we know that it is a transition of only one tooth and not several teeth in a gear wheel?

    It's not about moving a number of teeth because light is too fast for that to be possible at this point. (Of course, when we increase the speed a lot, it is certainly possible for the light to go out and return while passing a number of teeth)

    Hence all that is needed is to follow the dimming and shining of the light and there is no need to distinguish the teeth at all.

    And from there it's all calculations that depend on the radius of the gear wheel, its speed of rotation and the distance the light travels.

    Hope that was clear.

    In a shorter explanation of Foucault's pendulum, it seems to me that you completely missed the whole point there. It doesn't matter why it keeps moving, the point is that the pendulum keeps moving in the same direction (pendulum movement) back and forth straight. The rotational motion we observe is the motion of the Earth.

  110. giving
    The zodiac groups have changed by the month or so since Roman times. Today, if you were born under the sign of Aries, then the sun is actually in the sign of Pisces.

    So here we have refuted another lie of yours. I will make sure to refute one lie in each response, and I will not address the rest of the lies - until you answer my question.

    I'll ask again so you can't lie that you didn't see the question: my software assumes that the world is round and revolves around the sun. I can calculate the position of every visible body in the sky, at any hour, anywhere in the world, on any date - with an accuracy of thousands of degrees. How is this possible if I'm so wrong?

  111. I examined the subject of the change of the sky expected following the eclipse, the traces of the sun's movement around the center of the galaxy as well as due to the independent movements of the stars and it goes like this: the eclipse should not affect the Milky Way at all, that is, the 12 signs through which the sun, moon and planets pass will not change because The nikpah, because the earth's orbit around the sun does not change, but the direction of the rotation of our balls

    What's more, the tilt causes the equinoxes to change by one degree every 72 years and you can definitely see that.

    We revolve around the center of the galaxy but so do all the other stars so we don't see a change in the sky because of that.

    Although the stars have independent movements in different directions, but this movement is very small, the star with the fastest lateral movement found to date is Barnard's star and even it will only move about 5 degrees in 2,000 years (Bernard's star is at magnitude 9.5, i.e. fainter than visible to the unaided eye ), all the other stars move even more slowly.

  112. To provide

    I didn't understand what your problem is with the said lunar eclipse, the eclipse starts in the direction of the moon's movement, exactly where it should meet the shadow of the earth, and its shape is also perfectly fine like 2 partially overlapping circles.

    I am waiting for an answer on how you can explain the disappearance of a part of a ship or a tower on the horizon according to the flat world model. And as I explained to you in the previous response, what you call the law of disappearance is entirely due to the sphericity of the earth. Or in other words: in a flat world if I only observe above the height of the waves, and through a telescope, what reason in the world is there for part of a distant tower to be hidden by the water if I can see its top without a problem? A part of tens of meters!!

    Regarding the sun, you gave an example of a flashlight in a stadium at a height of 2 meters from the ground that will illuminate only the area below it, there are 2 problems with this example a. A stadium lantern aims to illuminate a limited area, think of the shape of a table lamp, the sun, on the other hand, is more like a pear bulb - it is spherical and shines in all directions, if there was a pear bulb at the end of the stadium you would see it without a problem from the other end.

    B. 2 meters is one hundredth of the length of the entire stadium, the sun is even according to your opinion at a height that is quite similar all over the world.

  113. Opponent - I purposely chose someone unrelated to the flat world who photographed the nearby stars.
    The fact that he claims that in the end the satellite passed and we don't really see anything - I will live.

  114. Miracles

    The Babylonians did not believe in the heliocentric world which had not yet been invented at all.

    From an article from the scientist from 13 years ago:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/babylonastronomy-220305

    1.
    "It is not known when, but the Babylonians also discovered the Saros Cycles, which apply at time intervals of about 6585 days, which are cycles in which the moon returns to almost the same position in relation to the sun. The above time is equal to a multiple of 223 synodal months or 18 years and 11.3 days. With the help of the Saros, solar eclipses and lunar eclipses can be calculated accurately, and they really predicted eclipses."
    And here are miracles, you see that they know how to predict solar and lunar eclipses without your amazing programs.
    Even today you can predict solar and lunar eclipses based on data that we have known for thousands of years.

    2.
    "According to Amzedek's "Venus Tablets" from the 17th century BC, it can be seen that sky observations were conducted already in the ancient Babylonian period, including many records that the Babylonians made for hundreds of years, recording their observations in special diaries, and cataloging stars in complete almanacs. Thanks to the precise records and observations, all these exact calculations were possible. In the diaries, the Babylonians recorded day after day and recorded data regarding the positions of the moon, the planets, eclipses, solstices and equinoxes, and sometimes even recorded the sunrise times of Sirius (probably in connection with the Egyptian culture, in which Sirius was the most important star)."

    "From here we learn that the zodiac of today was invented already then by the Babylonians."

    The zodiac hasn't changed for several thousand years - you see it in their diaries - your heliocentric world states that it moves 60 degrees - but in their diaries the signs are the same signs!
    Do you have proof that 4000 years ago the Babylonians said the zodiacs were somewhere else? I'd love to see. am waiting.

    3.
    "The Babylonians knew how to differentiate between the planets and the stars, and noticed their uneven movement in the sky in relation to the other stars."
    Even in a flat world there is a difference between the stars closest to us - Hema, Mars, Venus, etc. and between the distant stars.

    It has nothing to do with the influence of the sun. It's just a different kind of star.

    And opposite - it is clear that the stars closest to us look different than the twinkling distant stars.
    Here - see how beautifully the P900 camera photographed the nearby planets:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdKd20pP8Cc

    giving

  115. So-and-so 123
    The stars in the sky do move, for a number of reasons. The main reason is the collapse of the earth. The earth's axis is tilted on its side about 23.5 degrees. This axis is in motion, and today is roughly facing the direction of the North Star. The axis moves like the axis of a little spinning top, completing a rotation every 26 thousand years. That is, during the Babylonian period, the axis was approximately 60 degrees from its direction today. Matan of course did not know how to explain it.

    In addition, our position around the sun has an effect, a small effect, and only on the nearest stars. Of course Matan does not know how to explain this either.

    In addition, some stars have a motion component that affects the position of certain stars. Matan completely denies this.

    Matan is unable to explain anything... or predict anything. Ask him when the next solar eclipse is…

  116. For so-and-so 321
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW2xRR75lKE
    A National Geographic video explaining the types of lunar eclipses
    See minute 01:56 - explaining about a partial eclipse
    "Appears very dark on the side of the moon facing earth"

    facing earth

    And also see the animation - the moon enters the partial shadow that the earth casts from the sun, and the earth itself casts a convex shadow on the moon.

    What I showed a few weeks ago was a shadow at the top of the moon and also concave! – that is, also an inverted form.
    Physically there is no way that the earth casts such an inverted shadow - both up and down. Physically it doesn't work out.

    giving

  117. For moderation, the universe, and everything else

    Why do you think that in a lunar eclipse it should be covered from below? As far as I know there is no priority in the direction, in addition, the direction of the moon reverses every night between the first half and the second and also in some types of telescopes the image is reversed.

    The oldest detailed star maps we have are about 2,000 years old. I'm not savvy enough to know whether or how much they differ from the situation today, but I have no doubt that astronomers deal with it.

  118. rival
    Wow... the sun is 6000 miles away. But how do the morons explain 15-hour flights in a straight line?

    The video is really funny.

  119. So many words and not even one about Piso?

    And this after the "you are wrong and misleading" "inaccuracies" and a lecture on humility and modesty?

    Shabbat Shalom.

  120. giving
    Refer to my proof. For my part, that there will be no satellite or no missile - it does not change what I said. All the pictures from space will be faked by me - it still doesn't matter what I say. Piso is a liar, Einstein is a liar, Ilan Ramon is alive and well, Stephen Hawking is bluffing - who cares?

    We are not in competition here. Explain to me what is wrong with my proof.

    I won't take a word of yours before that.

  121. giving,

    I think you got most of your points answered, I'm not going to continue wasting my time on this ridiculous discussion.

  122. rival
    I thought about my proof (round world). It seems to me that it cannot be contradicted. Anyone can look at the software and understand that only a round world can behave like this.

    I also read another nice explanation. There is a point in the sky that all the stars revolve around, right? Next to it is the North Star.
    How can it be that in Australia (South America, South Africa...) the direction of rotation is reversed?

  123. Miracles - look how ridiculous this is - did you see who took this photo of the space station?
    Joel Kowsky – NASA photographer and photo editor…….
    https://twitter.com/jakowsky

    Nissim and Riv - I'm still waiting for you to answer me:
    What made Tesla move?
    Why was there a fade-away of the astronaut and other computer stunts in the space station?
    Why did they say that the Atlas missile and the SpaceX Iridium 4 missile met their mission when you see that the missiles just exploded?
    How did Piso notice his eye in 1 tooth or in a time of 0.000053 seconds (Israel Shapira is also for you)?
    Why in a partial lunar eclipse two weeks ago did you see the shadow of the earth on the top of the moon?
    How did we move 3 light years in the last 4000 years, and the rest of the stars in the universe also moved light years in other directions, but still the zodiac signs look exactly the same as they measured 4000 years ago?

    After that I will answer the things you wrote down yesterday

    Happy Shabbat Shalom

    giving

  124. Matan, I am glad that you are taking things seriously and implemented my recommendation regarding the numbering.

    First, regarding your introduction that simulates the heliocentric model to a row of circuit breakers that if one of them falls there is no electricity and it doesn't matter that 99 are active, this is so wrong, this is exactly what I tried to explain to you in the previous response, when you want to discuss whether the flat earth theory is true or not In any other subject, you have to look at all the evidence, and remember that you don't know everything and you are prone to mistakes like everyone else, so even if you think you have found evidence or 2 or 8 for your theory, you must take into account the rest of the evidence, and the weight and degree of your confidence in them , in the discussion before us the evidence for the sphericity of the earth and the existence of satellites is so numerous and of such quality that even if there is any evidence for the other side (and there is none), they should at most cast a slight doubt, maybe the earth is flat after all.
    With you, on the other hand, there is no doubt, it is as clear as day to you. And what if all the evidence is on the other side? Oh, what's the problem, everything is fake...

    In addition, all the measurements you try to doubt (Cavendish experiment, Foucault's pendulum, the cosmological constant, etc.) have been confirmed again and again and again by different scientists in different places, the A and B of science is the reproduction of experiments, if you think that the world of science today Based on one and only experiment by Cavendish -for example- and another that was carried out when he was alone, you have not the slightest idea how science works or you do not have a minimum of criticism of what you are told, as long as it strengthens your theory, you buy everything.

    A similar point: Regarding the Tesla car, you wrote: "The Tesla in space is the open circuit breaker, and even though the 99 circuit breakers are closed, the light bulb is not lit.
    There is no Tesla, so there is no Falcon 9, no Falcon XNUMX, no satellite launches and no executive arm of NASA.
    If I've ever caught someone lying, they lie a lot." End quote

    (Argument 101) Regarding the claim itself, I read someone who claims that sometimes in video recording (there was something with encoding or rather a live broadcast, I don't remember) the still parts of the image are shown as normal and only the parts that move are distorted, this also explains the video you brought with the astronauts turning into a ball of color for a second But I will emphasize that I have no idea about video editing so I have no way to judge it. Anyway, do you think Spice X would miss such a blunder that shows them as liars? And in general, it's a huge leap (for humanity...) to come from such a doubt-evidence to the conclusion that there are no satellite launches, even if we assume that Tesla was a fake, how is this evidence for everything else??? True, it raises suspicion, but to say that it means that if it falls there is nothing? how did you get this???

    (Argument 102) Broadly speaking, regarding the list of additional claims, bring links and we'll talk.

    (Argument 103) - As far as I know the sun's rays are almost parallel because it is very far from us in relation to its size (Nissim also agrees with me), exactly the opposite of what you wrote.
    As for Newton, I don't know enough.

    Regarding the piezo experiment, Israel already answered you that there was no need to measure teeth, he himself did the experiment without measuring any teeth. By the way, I myself have no idea about this subject but here is someone who understands it very well and even did it himself! why do you insist You made a mistake, you understand, it's over. And if you don't understand, find out further, maybe ask Israel exactly the details, but don't stay stuck with this question when it has a good answer.

    (Argument 104) This is my favorite argument, it is full of mistakes that stem from your lack of orientation on the subject, shall we begin?
    For starters, here is another video that shows the same launch of an Atlas missile from - 02.09.15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EbBij-Vrtk Does that still seem like a blast to you?
    You can clearly see how the missile continues to fly as usual all the time, no explosion. Next you can see 2 side boosters detached from the central body as well as what looks like the parts of the canopy (that covers the satellite), some explanations: this is what happened there, the launch took place not long after sunset, so when the missile reached a height of several tens of kilometers it "saw" again the sun, the rocket itself will barely be visible from this distance, but its exhaust gases are clearly visible. The reason it looks like it is falling to the ground is related to both the direction of the photograph and the fact that when rockets are launched into space they start in a vertical position and slowly change direction to a balanced direction, this is because height is the small problem in space flight, the main issue is to bring the payload to a horizontal speed around the earth of approx. 28,000 km/h, so the missile appears to be falling because it was moving very far away from me, just like a plane flying away from me towards the horizon will appear to be getting lower and lower until it disappears completely over the horizon (another evidence of the spherical nature of the earth, in a flat world you should be able to see a plane far away much larger than in a spherical world (minus atmospheric effects)).
    And the same story with the launch of Space X, come see a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRzZl_nq6fk&t=208s
    Here the reporter talks about it in advance! This is why he came to photograph the launch at all, because he knows that launches close to sunset create such a beautiful sight! By the way, even there you can clearly see that the missile flew all the time as usual without any explosions, you can also see the separation of the first stage, as well as the nitrogen jets that the first stage fires to stabilize and drive itself back to the launch site (in addition to the activation of the main engine later of course) and even the two The halves of the canopy shoot their own tiny gas jets -SPACEX is trying to return them for further use as well-, I'm sure you'll have more misunderstanding questions if you watch the video carefully, but don't think that if you don't understand something it's proof that the whole story is fake, ask the experts. By the way, this answer, like most of the others I wrote, I knew even before you asked, it's not that I was looking for an answer and in the end I found something.

    As for Ariane 5, I did not look carefully, but a plausible answer is that Ariane 5 missiles are all launched from one and the same base in French Guinea, as we know, maybe that's why it looks so similar to one another.

    And Matan, notice this is already the 10th "proof"? 20? Yours is easily refuted by those who understand more than you in the said field, maybe you will learn from this and in the future treat the videos that people feed you with a little more suspicion? And realize that even what you still see as evidence will most likely turn out to be an embarrassing mistake.

    (Argument 105) It's really not serious, you understand tanks not the space station and therefore you have no idea what is needed for its ongoing maintenance, how do you say? It's all speculation. But as someone who understands a little more than you on the subject, I can tell you a. The normal situation is 6 astronauts, the period of time that the station crew has 3 astronauts is a few weeks or even less. B. First of all, the space station is much, much more expensive and expensive than a tank or a submarine, it was built in advance so that a limited team of astronauts could maintain it, and another thing is that it is not subjected to almost any of the same pressures and loads that are applied to earthly vessels.

    (Argument 10) Regarding Hawking, a. What Nisim wrote in Yes it is relatively rare for a person with ALS to survive that long, so what? Unconventional things also happen in the world, what does this have to do with our topic? Each average also consists of rarer endpoints. Forgive me Matan, but you attribute a malicious meaning to everything slightly unusual, the same with Hawking, the same with the failure that led to the deletion of the original Apollo 11 documentation (only the original reels and only Apollo 11, remember?) and more.

    Regarding 1. I couldn't understand you. Regarding 2. You really didn't understand what was happening there, the helicopter flew in a straight line the whole time until it reached the other bank, and only then when it hovered over the opposite ground did it begin to lower. He lowers to land, if there is no reason to do it above the water.

    (Argument 11) Say, are you kidding me? Where did you come up with these concepts "the vanishing line" and "the vanishing law"?
    You are like someone who is trying to prove to him that gravity exists (let's say he thinks that the air pushes everything down) so you take him to the laboratory, take the air out of a tank and drop some object, you expect him to admit that gravity does exist but then you hear him say: Nooooo, that Gravity is not "the force that causes things to fall down"...
    That's how you sound. The law of disappearance is the curvature of the earth!

    Think for a moment, I am on the beach of Tel Aviv at a height of 5 meters above sea level, and I am looking with a telescope towards a distant ship or the chimneys of the power plant in Hadera, what reason in the world is there for me not to see them (the entire height above 5 meters of the waves (suppose the waves are At this height, if more you will observe from higher and vice versa))? After all, according to your opinion - that the world is flat - the ship or the chimneys are directly in front of me, then nothing hides them from me = is between my eyes and between them??? The only reason (besides the atmosphere, which we are not talking about because nothing will change in it if I climb a few more meters) that something will be revealed to me if I look from a higher altitude is the spherical nature of the earth!
    (If I misunderstood your meaning, I would be happy to hear a correction, but please explain it very clearly, with explanations and examples because until now it was terribly vague)

    (Argument 13) What Nissim said.

    (argument 14) a. As Nissim explained to you beautifully, if you do not know with great precision the location of the ships there is no possibility of building a tracking system with them. B. GPS works even when the entire horizon does not have even one ship.

    (Argument 16) You claim that the sun is only thousands of km away from us... this is ridiculous on so many levels that I don't have the strength to begin to elaborate, but one thing - if the sun was that close (say 100,000 km) then the size Its distance should be about 1,000 km and the moon should be even closer and even smaller...

    (Argument 18) What Nissim said.

    (Argument 19-20) You wrote: Look, surely something is going on, I'm not saying it isn't, I saw it with my own eyes. Maybe there is a technology to put a missile or a plane at an altitude of 30-40 km, I don't know, there is also a technology called "blue ray" I didn't understand it exactly, but they say you can project it into the sky, so maybe it is.
    Again, I don't know what exactly, but the light passing through the sky I don't think is a satellite but something else, which I don't know for sure what. End quote.

    Matan, I clearly proved to you that these are satellites, every person from any point on the earth can see dozens of satellites with the eye, people who are separated by hundreds of kilometers both see the same satellite in the sky, and if they are separated by up to about 50 km both will see him almost straight above them at the same time. This clearly proves that the height of the satellite's flight is hundreds of kilometers, otherwise one of the pair of people separated by tens of kilometers would have seen it much lower -closer to the horizon- than his friend. And what I said about the fact that it can be seen from anywhere, every day, and dozens of satellites, answers the question, maybe it's a missile or something, in addition to the previous proof. The "blue horn" is at best a technology under development/experimental and at worst complete nonsense (I didn't check in depth). In any case, it is possible to see satellites from anywhere in the world, including from the heart of the sea and from the depths of the desert, and it was possible even decades ago. And in general, you noticed how you pile conspiracies on top of conspiracies, the main thing is to save your theory.

    And last but not least, the Japanese video of the stars with a Nikon camera, etc., it's so ridiculous that I'm not sure if you even wrote it seriously, it's like someone who would claim that cow's milk is actually green and as evidence would refer to a YouTube video showing someone milking a cow and what comes out is green milk …

    Any person with a telescope or even good binoculars can look up into the sky for themselves and see the planets as clear spheres, including many details on their surfaces, I myself have seen this countless times.
    Do you have any idea how many there are? In my estimation, only in Israel there are thousands who own a telescope let alone binoculars... You have no criticism of what you see, there is a video so that's it, it's perfect proof.

    In short Matan, you may have a very certain knowledge of science, and you probably really believe what you say, but you prove again and again and again that you have no idea how to prove things, what is evidence and what is a joke.

  125. giving,

    "8-9 months ago I spoke with a senior manager at "Space Communication" (before all their business chaos) and I asked them for a picture of the satellite in space for my daughter's school work. She told me that they don't have a picture of the satellite in space but only a picture of the satellite on the ground. True, the distance is 36,000 km, so I asked her why they don't take pictures from another satellite, and she said they don't have such a picture.
    So if the communications space doesn't have a satellite image, what can I say?'

    The things you write here indicate childishness and a lack of understanding at the most basic level! What is it to photograph it from another satellite?? Are you serious? This is a communication satellite that flies at a speed of tens of thousands of km/h in space at a specific height and provides communication services! What reason do they have to film him when he is in space??? Do you want them to send, especially for you, another satellite that will fly in a coordinated manner in the same orbit and at the same speed, point its cameras in the direction of the other satellite and photograph it just to disprove your strange claims about a flat earth? Do you think they are that bored? Don't they have anything to do?

    Wow you are 40 years old but think like a child!

  126. By the way, Nissim, I think another message of yours (the long one) was released that you didn't see before, I'm writing it down just in case Matan misses it because I saw that you answered him there about many things 🙂

  127. : )

    It seems to me that Matan is part of a worldwide conspiracy that is trying to convince us that the earth is flat. Why? And what interest do they have? only to provide solutions.

  128. rival
    If you have good field binoculars, you can see at least 2 beautiful things. The first is Venus. Venus is close and bright, and is seen as a circle in binoculars.
    The second thing is even more interesting - look at Jupiter: you can see 2-3 of its moons!!!

    But - don't tell what you saw here. Matan will say that you are lying, that you are part of the conspiracy!!!!

  129. giving
    Come explain something to me.
    As part of my work, I am now building a planetarium from scratch. I have a huge table that contains information about stars: angular position (right ascension and declination), distance, color, size, and so on. The "so on" includes the speeds of the stars - there are stars in the sky that do move, and in order to place them accurately, you have to take these speeds and the date into account.

    In addition - give me data on the orbits of the planets around the sun, including the mutual influence between them.

    In addition - I have a Madwick calculation of the rotation of the earth, the tilting of the poles and notations

    In addition - I have an exact calculation of the position of the moon (the most complicated calculation here, for many reasons).

    Now pay attention - how do I manage to calculate the image of the sky from anywhere in the world, on any date, and at any time? In particular - how do I know that a total solar eclipse will be seen on July 2, 2019? (He will be seen in South America).

    Maybe it won't happen? So how do I calculate exactly where the eclipse will be seen on August 21, 2017? It's an eclipse that I saw with my own eyes to my delight 🙂 I drove half a day to a place where I knew there would be a full eclipse (and not many people). How did anyone (NASA in this case) know how to calculate it?

    Matan - let's leave all the fake movies and all the stories. Please - explain to me how my software is so accurate, if the earth is not a sphere.

  130. giving

    I will only answer some of your points, but that doesn't mean there is anything clever in the other points.

    SpaceX is a private company. Among other things, they provide, for a fee, services to NASA. NASA, in addition, contributed a lot of knowledge to this company, being a government company.

    What is the force that caused the car to move? Thrust from jet streams from the other part of the missile (it has coarse thrusters that keep it away from the payload - that's how it is in Matan space engineering). But, for my part, the film is really fake. Don't you think the level of forgery is too low??

    You wrote "many times you see their hands with pixels, they are missing fingers especially when they move the microphone, sometimes they have extra fingers"
    Right. This happens because of the compression method of the information. If you want - I can explain it in detail - but first please learn what library harmonies are. Without it you won't understand.

    You see that one of the round openings is closed at the exchange station, and the iron opening bends as if it were made of sponge." a lie. It's just a lie.

    Artosthenes - the Greeks were great seafarers and even then surrounded Africa from the south. They saw that the sun was there to the north of them and knew that the world was round. Orthosthenes made a beautiful measurement that was based on the fact that it was really far.
    Let me tell you a secret: the Greeks did not only measure the size of the Earth. They knew the distance to the moon and its size, and the range to the sun and its size!!!

    space launches. Matan, I lived in Florida in the ferry days, and saw several launches, day and night. I'm sorry to bother you Sanae-Klaus - but these missiles go very very very high. They don't explode and don't fall back (except for one unfortunately, I know you don't care that people died - not only do you have no brain, you also have no heart).
    I have also seen launches in the western US - from a distance of hundreds of kilometers from the launch site (and friends were at the site and they saw it with their own eyes).

    Do you think Hawking is bluffing? You have no shame?

    Explain to me - how the horizon recedes with height in a flat world.

    Pico pendulums are on steel cables. Wow - you are a sick liar...

    GPS - how does it work in the heart of the Matan Sea? There are no ships at sea with GPS antennas. Anyone who has finished high school can understand why, but I'll explain to you (I believe all your certificates are fake - and I can prove it!!!) The reason is that one of the principles of GPS is that you must know exactly where the transmitter is. How would such a ship at sea know its location?? After all, she doesn't have GPS...

    Polaris is not exactly at the celestial north pole - it is shifted about half a degree. The positions of the stars actually changed - and Polaris was not the "North Star" in Babylonian times. The whole galaxy rotates, so you don't see big changes.

    At an altitude of 20 km you don't see curvature yet, but you do see things that you don't see from a low altitude. Your stories about visual disturbances are not true.

    I no longer have the energy to answer you for every nonsense you say, so I will write another comment and come with one question.

  131. giving,

    And one more thing:

    "The stars are messy points of light that twinkle. Just like what we learned when we were children on twinkling stars.'

    Absolutely not, my friend has a telescope, quite simply the truth, and you can see very clearly the round shape of the planets! It is true that when you look at the planet directly through the telescope it is difficult to see because the telescope shakes and the distance is great, but when you collect a large number of frames, stabilize them using software to the same relative position in the frame and connect them to an average image you see a beautiful round shape! You even notice many details on their surface!!!

  132. giving,

    See how your blind belief in flat world nonsense makes you see things the opposite of what they really are.

    Look at your video again:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hceMXAQWWN8

    Are you claiming this is evidence of a flat world? really? Leave aside the fact that in the two videos you brought for most of the time, the horizon is not clearly seen at all, and therefore it is not possible to draw conclusions here or there, but there are still a few frames in which the round shape of the horizon can be clearly seen. See for example minute 02:04:18, and minute 02:05:30. Look not through a small smartphone screen but through a large home computer screen, and transfer the video to high resolution.

    Take a screenshot, copy to a photo editing software and draw a straight line that touches the horizon. Don't you see that the horizon is round? Don't you see that the straight line touches the horizon at only one point? Check and see!

  133. To everyone - an interesting analysis was published today
    7 years ago someone flew from New York to Moscow and took a time-lapse photo of the flight from the window
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pliyY5S11w
    I believe the video is not fake because it is from 7 years ago when no one dreamed of the flat world.
    The interesting thing about the movie is that you see that the sun is setting, in the middle of the flight there is darkness, but towards the end of the flight the sunlight suddenly returns.
    The sun set after 25% (1 minute out of 4 minutes movie) flight time and started to rise after 62.5% flight time (2.5 minutes out of 4 minutes movie)
    So how is this possible I ask?

    Here is the video "my perceptive" that published this very day and the explanation of how in a flat world it makes sense
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHp1RzPdoN0

    But suppose his explanation -
    Is it possible that on a 9 hour flight east you can see the sun set after 2.25 hours, for 3.5 hours there is darkness, then after that the light returns for another +3 hours?
    Is this possible in a round world?
    I will rejoice in repentance

    giving

  134. Second part

    Let's start answering your questions:

    (argument 10)
    Video of the helicopter - notice who did it? Hawking.
    The "Hawking" brand is also a partner in the conspiracy. (Don't you ask yourself how an ALS patient can last 50 years and still live? The life expectancy from the moment of the disease is 3-5 years. Only 10% of patients get to live more than 10 years, but most of them die after that due to a health complication. So how is Hawking living already 50 years?)
    I know this video from the very beginning of my investigation.
    The video is edited.
    The 2 main proofs:
    1. See minute 7:24 – see the hill where the picture is taken. You don't recognize her in the viewfinder at all.
    2. See 07:58 that they rejoice that there are 24 feet. Behind them there is close sand and a hill instead of water. They should be over the sea and not over the beach.
    In short, everything is edited in the video.

    Regarding the video of the chimneys:
    This relates to the issue of perspective which I will answer at the end.

    (argument 11)
    Your understanding is incorrect. The fact that there are thousands of kilometers in a flat country is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the limits are that you can see. There is a visual limitation - this is a fact. On the beach you can see several kilometers.
    The same thing about sunset - the sun sets in a line called the "maiden line" - the line where all things disappear for you.
    And if you go higher up in altitude, the area opens up and you can see a lot more. If you are at the beach and climb a 10-meter crane, let's say you can already see up to let's say a distance of 20 km.
    And from a 100-meter crane you can see, let's say, dozens of kilometers.
    And from an airplane you can see for hundreds of kilometers.
    The sun disappears from your sight even if you are on an infinite surface and therefore it sets.

    (argument 12)
    Foucault's pendulum is a fiction.
    The first reason is why does it need a start? You have to give her the first push to get her to turn around.
    The second reason is that it keeps moving just because of the elasticity of the cable/rope. This. This has nothing to do with the rotation of the earth. Each movement "charges with energy" the elasticity of the cable/rope and this is what makes it continue.
    Let's do something like this - put the pendulum on an iron rod - will it continue forever? No, it will constantly move slowly until it stops completely because the rod is not elastic. Just like children's iron swings - why don't they go on forever? Because their energy is running out.

    (argument 13)
    Sorry, there aren't tens of thousands of photos. There are tens of thousands of simulations and CGI.
    Write in Google satellite, most of the results are simulations.
    8-9 months ago I spoke with a senior manager at "Space Communications" (before all their business chaos) and I asked them for a picture of the satellite in space for my daughter's school work. She told me that they don't have a picture of the satellite in space but only a picture of the satellite on the ground. True, the distance is 36,000 km, so I asked her why they don't take pictures from another satellite, and she said they don't have such a picture.
    So if space communication doesn't have a satellite image, what can I say.
    One more thing - about a month ago there was a space conference of the Ministry of Science in Tel Aviv and of course I went there. It was really interesting. There were many hundreds of slides, there were let's say about 100 of satellite images in the presentations - only one of the 100 was supposedly a photograph of a real satellite. All the other 99 - all simulations!
    How do I know you ask? Because in the open questions I asked them about it…….and they told me (there were 5 people from 5 space agencies) that here one of them had a real image (but the other 99 satellites in the presentations were simulations).
    not problematic?

    (argument 14)
    First of all, you need to understand that 99% of the communication in the world goes through....submarine cables in the oceans and seas. That is, all communication through satellites is no longer that important
    (Anecdote - at the same space conference I was at, you know what the purposes of 90% of the satellites were - climate and agriculture. Communication was barely mentioned there).
    GPS - I said again that the police are making a phone, so it's through 3 antennas.
    GPS is based on cellular antennas, stratospheric zeroing (hundreds of kilometers through bounce from the sky).
    On the beaches there are antennas and dishes.
    It is possible that there are ships in the sea with antennas,

    (argument 15)
    dont want to answer. You know my answer already

    (argument 16)
    Think of a dark Yad Eliyahu basketball hall. Put a strong lamp but at a height of only 2 meters next to one of the baskets (note that it is not on the ceiling but at a low height of 2 meters). Half the pitch will be lit, but half the pitch….will be dark.
    The sun and the moon in the flat world are local - they are only thousands of kilometers away from us. Proof that when you launch balloons into the sky, you see sunspots on the water. How does a sun that is 150 million km away from us make sunspots?

    (argument 17)
    I answered before

    (argument 18)
    I raise the stake. How do you explain the star-trail phenomenon? The North Star is seen fixed and all the other stars revolve around it. It doesn't work out why. And those with a larger radius than Polaris go through a larger circumference.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V3rmDG5J8A
    An amazing spectacle.
    What is special about the North Star that everyone revolves around?
    The North Star is located above the North Pole - the center of the world
    Note one more thing - for thousands of years the ancient Babylonians recorded the positions of the stars (I'm not talking about the stars in the solar system but the other stars and the zodiac signs). For thousands of years all the positions of the stars did not move (they move of course but in the end they return to the same point).
    How do you explain it?
    The speed of the sun around the galaxy is 828,000 km/h (of course we also move at this speed, yes....)
    It moves 7.2 billion km per year!
    In 4000 years it moves almost 29 thousand billion km or 29 trillion km (28,800,000,000,000) which is equivalent to 3 light years!!!!! (one light year is 9.46 trillion km).
    So tell me - in the last 4000 years we moved 3 light years, and the rest of the stars also moved each in a different direction - so how does the sky look the same? How did the positions of the stars in Taurus not change? How come the positions in Aries have not changed?

    (argument 19-20)
    I know the shot of Capricorn - again, you see a fast moving object. And also regarding the other satellites - you see passing objects. I know what a satellite is - it weighs a few kg-tons, it has equipment, it has solar panels - I don't see it in all the photographs. I see a point of light passing by.
    And after I showed you (argument 104) mine - missiles did not reach the sky but they still reported that they launched satellites - so why believe that?
    Look, something is definitely going on, I'm not saying it isn't, I saw it with my own eyes. Maybe there is a technology to put a missile or a plane at an altitude of 30-40 km, I don't know, there is also a technology called "blue ray" I didn't understand it exactly, but they say you can project it into the sky, so maybe it is.
    Again, I don't know what exactly, but the light passing through the sky I don't think is a satellite but something else, which I don't know for sure what.

    In conclusion,
    Astronaut Don Pettit - what he said is also an open circuit breaker! This is not something allegorical. Do you see a different technology in any field in the world that we had in the 60s and now we don't have it? Is there such a thing? In the field of computers, communications, cars, planes, submarines, Syrians, there is no such thing as we once had technology, but we lost/destroyed it and today we don't have it.
    That's why what he said stinks.
    Another interesting thing - you know when NASA broadcast the moon landing to the whole nation, they did not broadcast the actual broadcast, but filmed a television that projected the live footage, and broadcast that. Do you understand what I mean? I mean, what we have today is second-rate footage, so it's impossible to analyze them because they were taken from a television after all the original footage mysteriously disappeared (just look, it's not about the size of a discon-key or a record, it's about rooms full of reels and other information. Rooms Whole, not a small diskette. How can you make whole rooms disappear? And why)

    Thank you so-and-so 321

    Miracles
    And no sarcasm please
    I hope you understand that you have vision limitations for a distance of 15-20 km due to the atmosphere, therefore you cannot see Cyprus from Zikr Yaakov. Obviously, if you climb a high mountain (as you said) or on a plane, then you will have an angle of vision that you can see to greater distances. But again, because of the air and humidity they limit you. (Remember, so-and-so 321 also said this)
    Obviously, the radius of the world is not 180 km - again something you don't get is the perspective - even in an infinite flat world you won't be able to see the whole thing even if you are at an altitude of 50 km - what to do in the end there is a limit of vision.
    Regarding the photograph of Lake Michigan - what you say is not true. This is a real photo from a distance of 96 km and a very famous photo that was taken from the side of the state of Michigan to the side of the state of Illinois where Chicago is.
    You can say it's a fake, but no one else said so because they checked it. You wish that because of the cold and hot air "the light was bent". Blessed is the believer. This picture was proof that there is no curvature.
    Regarding ice-walls in Antarctica - see pictures, they will explain better. (It is clear to me that you will say that it is all a fake, as I say about the satellite images that it is a fake....)
    https://www.google.co.il/search?q=ice-wall+antarctica&rlz=1C1EJFA_enIL685IL685&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=nbsCCGZcwOM4DM%253A%252C1WEJ8SEO2nEm7M%252C_&usg=__a_oqUa2Kg1-F8W8naP0ugDp8O80%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBqObAlLfZAhXDDewKHX0mDM8Q9QEIKjAA#imgrc=_

    Regarding the waves - I will answer everyone at the end
    To conclude with you Nissim - I would like to know based on what you said that the camera is connected to the car, what was the physical thing that caused the car to move to the right, move to the left and then something balanced it so that it remained constant.
    And she did this twice.

    And another thing again - if you really flew 20 km high as you said at the beginning - did you see curvature or not?

    to the opponent
    1. The Antarctic Treaty is a treaty from the early 60s in which it regulates what is allowed to be done and what is not allowed to be done in Antarctica. What is interesting here is the issue about latitude 60 and south - that is, a private person cannot take a plane or a boat on his own and travel to Antarctica. You cannot go past latitude 60 south (the southern tip of South America is latitude 56). All the people who do pass are coordinated researchers, or coordinated flights. And even then they are taken to specific places with an escort.
    Everyone who goes around the world - like Magellan
    https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A0%D7%93_%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%9F
    – Do it in an east-west line. There is no one, even today in a plane, who has circled the world from north to south (after all, in a flat world you can't do that).
    And also planes that broke records that they say they did, so you see that they reached Antarctica but returned back the same way to Australia. That is, they did not cross in the other direction.
    Now, if in theory they let a skeptic like me sail south all the time, I guess I'd reach walls of ice, then I'd have to walk another few thousand km on the ice south and then I'd reach a canopy/dome/sky that wraps around the earth.
    It is the same dome that prevents rockets into space from crossing the 100 km Kerman line, so just because of the canopy you cannot launch satellites.
    delusional I know. I thought so too 11 months ago.
    I gave the example that it should be sunny 24 hours in Antarctica during December-February, but the base that is there for 4 hours has no shade and no sun.

    2. Private people have launched balloons into the sky up to a height of 120 thousand feet and see that the earth is flat. This is just one example. There are many of them. See say 1:49:15
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hceMXAQWWN8
    And it is the most famous
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAPXZgJjv7A

    By the same token, there are also photographs of balloons that showed curvature, right?
    Unfortunately I can't find the video, but there was a scientific article some time ago that a university launched a balloon into the sky and you can see the curvature. But when you go to her original video you see that while they released the balloon from the ground, right in the first meters you see the ground is also curved…..meaning they used a fisheye lens.

    3. What do the rest of the stars look like:
    There is an amazing Nikon P900 camera that has a magnification of up to 83.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juJ2-f9T_lI
    A video shot in Japan. There are many more.
    (Just for information - the "Einstein" of the flat world is Nikola Tesla. I won't go into details now)
    The stars are messy points of light that twinkle. Just like what we learned when we were kids on twinkling stars.

    And for everyone
    "I put my money where my mouth is" (original in English)
    Let you know that I have already spent NIS 20 on 2 experiments I did with a telescope and theodolite - a curvature test for 4 km on Ashkelon beach with a 500 meter long Stychmus pipe (!) and a curvature test for 3 km on a flat embankment in the Dead Sea pools. A total of 2 people (!) participated in the 18 experiments.
    Unfortunately, the Stichmus tube was stretched too far to 650 meters and its readings were not reliable enough to be used, and the second experiment in the Dead Sea (I used the Dead Sea pool to mark 00) because of the high humidity that came out of the pool I was unable to see well and get reliable readings.
    A third experiment with lessons learned is planned soon.

    So, I'll keep it short about the waves -
    In a flat world the normal waves at a height of 5 meters (and not waves at a height of 5 km) are the horizon line and the vanishing line and are the meeting with the sky. We will call them the ramp.
    Every object (ships or mountains or Hadera chimneys) behind the meeting of the ramp (waves) with the sky - the substratum is partially hidden because it is beyond the horizon line. It's because of the perspective. So you only see the top part.
    But because you won't accept it, in the next week or two I will go to a long flat surface, put a low camera and let my daughter ride in a small car that will move away from me - and then I will give you results. I'm also interested in what will happen.

    Regards (took me 5 hours to write this!)
    giving

  135. Part 1 of 2

    (Miraculous and Rival answers at the end of the message)
    (Answer about why ships and mountains are hidden at the end of the message)
    And I ask everyone for some cynicism

    For so-and-so 321

    (Introduction 1)
    First of all about myself:
    I'm 40
    In matriculation I did 5 units of mathematics 100 and 5 units of physics 94
    I was a police officer and a military officer in the Armored Corps for 10 years on a permanent basis
    I have a bachelor's and master's degree (not exact sciences)
    (I'm sure if I hadn't stayed in permanent color then I would have studied physics (I can't stand computers))
    Today I am a businessman
    I have been a fan of science and astronomy since a young age. I read a lot of science books and watch a lot of documentaries about space

    What I want to say is that I'm not an enthusiastic 22-year-old or a retiree looking for something to do in my spare time. I'm a numbers man and I look at this whole issue with facts and figures.
    Until a year ago I was just like you.

    (Introduction 2)
    Regarding your opening remarks about 2 ways of access, solving a puzzle, etc.
    I frustrate everything in life as an electric circuit connected to a lamp and a battery, and in the middle there are 100 circuit breakers. The circuit breakers are superconductors and transfer the current in a nanosecond. Ummm, if 99 breakers will work amazingly but one single breaker will be open - never, but never will the light bulb turn on.

    And with such an approach I come to examine the heliocentric world. It may be that 99 circuit breakers will work perfectly - there is gravitation, there are satellites, millions of people work on it, there are photographs from space, but one circuit breaker, just one that I open in my investigation - the whole heliocentric world falls.

    The heliocentric world is built like floors in a tower:
    First, the Greeks 2500 years ago saw that ships were disappearing
    Then before 2300 Artosthenes concluded with his experiment that the world is round
    Then Cuprincus
    Then Kepler with the 3 laws
    At the same time Galileo
    Then Newton deduced gravitation to explain why what keeps the stars moving around each other
    Then Cavendish who found the G of gravitation
    Then experiments measuring the speed of light by Piezo Foucault (before that they calculated with parallax and star abrasion)
    Then Einstein
    And then the Hubble who calculated the distance to the stars
    Then computers, missiles, satellites that were all based on all of history.

    What I described to you above is a tower of floors:
    There is no gravitation - the whole tower falls
    There is no constant G - the whole tower falls

    (Introduction 3) (Argument 17)
    You ask how many people who work in things related to space - so they work on all of humanity?
    I believe that most of the people who work in the industry really design satellites, really send rockets into space, and really receive signals from something, but do not know that they are being worked on.
    Only thousands of people know the real truth.
    But it has to do with the Freemasons and the Illuminati. The executive arm is Rockefeller, the financial arm is Rothschild.
    True, it sounds ridiculous and far-fetched. I know. Also absurd that 2 out of 20 of my reserve class are affiliated with the Masonic organization.
    Today, by the way, a new term Deep-State is used - an interesting article from a month ago:
    http://www.mako.co.il/news-world/international-q1_2018/Article-3af8607c9eb5161004.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=948912327
    "In a survey conducted this year by the "Washington Post" and the ABC network, it was found that half of Americans believe in the existence of a policy-writing arm within the government. They believe in the concept of the "Deep State".
    like I said,
    The French Revolution was made by the Freemasons.
    https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D

    "During the era of revolutions, in the last third of the 18th century, the Freemasons played a decisive role in the political upheavals that befell Europe and especially in the French Revolution. Among the public there is even a widespread claim that the Freemasons were the ones who caused the revolutions and that they maintained a large underground organization against the old government and the church. One of the comprehensive essays written on the subject is the study of Father Augusten de Barruel: "Memoirs to clarify the history of Jacobinism."
    So maybe it's not so crazy…….

    After the introduction, let's talk about the matter - some of my arguments and then I will answer yours:
    (Argument 101) Tesla in space
    On purpose I keep mentioning SpaceX's Tesla. SpaceX today is the executive arm of NASA in delivering things into space. Most of NASA's stuff is delivered into space by SpaceX.
    Now, about the earth moving behind the car:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrpGXfwyibI
    In the video you see - the earth is shaking, the earth with pixels, the earth is shaking.
    There are 3 options:
    Option 1 - everything is a fake and it is filmed on the ground.
    Option 2 - only the camera moves. But it doesn't make sense because the earth was shaking and the car should have been shaking too.
    Option 3 that Nissim said - the camera is fixed to the car.

    Let's analyze option 3. The camera is fixed to the car (as in a selfie - you don't move and only the background moves)
    Because in space everything is a vacuum, and if you start a movement you will continue it forever until there is no resistance then:
    There is a force/boost/thrust that moves the car to the right
    There is a greater force/boost/thrust that stops the car and moves the car to the left
    There is a greater force/boost/thrust that moves the car to the right and balances the car and the car remains stationary without movement.

    And once again it happened:
    There is a force/boost/thrust that moves the car to the right
    There is a greater force/boost/thrust that stops the car and moves the car to the left
    There is a greater force/boost/thrust that moves the car to the right and balances the car and the car remains stationary without movement.

    Yes, so what is the force that caused the car to move?
    We know that there are no car rocket engines that can move the car.
    If we assume that the car was hit by fragments or spilled (debris, then how is the movement of the car straight and regular and not messy
    Maybe air that came out of the wheels and gave the boost? Still the movement will not be constant and balanced

    You see so-and-so 321, there is nothing physical that can explain why the car moves the way it does - right, stop, left, balance. And she did it twice.

    Therefore, it was said by Sherlock Holmes - "that when you rule out the impossible,
    What remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

    The Tesla in space is the open circuit breaker, and even though the 99 circuit breakers are closed, the bulb is not lit.
    There is no Tesla, so there is no Falcon 9, no Falcon XNUMX, no satellite launches and no executive arm of NASA.
    If I've ever caught someone in a lie, they lie a lot.

    (Argument 102) Computer stunts from the space station
    The real term as I wrote it is fade-away. But what does it matter if it fades or flashes.
    This is proof that there are computer stunts on the space station. It's black and white.
    Another breaker tripped.
    Now, you can't un-theme videos. We also saw the US attack in Iraq in 1991 through videos on television, in the Twin Towers in 2001 we saw videos of the buildings collapsing, and practically every news event you see through the television or computer. So if you cancel the space station videos, then you cancel all the other events that happened.
    Now, it is true that videos can be faked, but the beauty here is that they often link to a real link from where they got it, and you can check the official video that was published yourself.
    Let's go back to the computer stunts:
    And you ask yourself, why? After all, they broadcast from the station, why do we need computer stunts?
    And I showed another video (fairly new from only a month ago) where you see the figures swirling but the background remains constant! How in our physical world can only characters get messed up, but the background remains constant? If there was a problem with the picture then the background had to be messed up too
    And there are dozens more times that you caught problems in the broadcasts at the space station (I didn't attach videos, but you can easily find them)
    1. Many times you see their hands with pixels, they are missing fingers in their hands especially when they move the microphone, sometimes they have extra fingers
    2. You see bubbles in space.
    3. You see that one of the round openings is closed at the exchange station, and the iron opening bends as if it were made of sponge.
    4. You see someone eating peas but there is a cut of each act. I mean it's a 3-4 minute video but edited all the time. And after each edit it is in a different position, then you suspect they did it in 0 G planes, and because you have a 30-45 second window of zero drag, each edited section is a different time the plane made its descent to 0 drag.
    5. You see someone at a 45 degree angle, then suddenly she suddenly moves in the same position 2 meters to the side and gets stuck on the side of the station as if something pushed her. Such movement is not possible in a space station in space. And then you ask yourself that it fits the plane at 0 drag and then the plane goes into a vortex and it moves right to the side.
    6. When someone is on the earth and he is at an inclination angle of say 45 degrees and he is talking (not sleeping), his head always tries to straighten to be vertical, because our head strives to be straight. But seeing astronauts on the space station at a 45 degree angle, their head also tilts up and tries to straighten. It doesn't work out if you're in space and you don't feel pull and you don't have the urge to straighten your head.
    7. They always say that there is a few seconds delay between the moment someone from Israel speaks and when they answer at the station, and this is legitimate. But there are several videos where they play together simultaneously without delay, people in Israel and an astronaut on the station, and you ask yourself how they play simultaneously if there is always a delay of 2-3 seconds? It is not possible.
    8. Augmented reality - an astronaut made hand movements as if he took an object and put it aside, but you, as a viewer, see nothing. And these movements don't make sense why he did it. But if, as I said, they have augmented reality, then it is possible that he took an object "from another layer" and really put it aside, but there was a problem with the broadcast to us viewers and we did not see the living layer of the object.
    And there are at least 10 other such cases.
    And it shouldn't be that way.

    (Argument 103) The history of science
    I have already written this at length and will not expand further on the above lines:
    How did Artosthenes even estimate that the sun's rays are parallel, how did he even have this in his perception, they are parallel only because the sun is very huge. Even when they thought we revolved around the sun, there is no way they thought the sun was that huge.
    How did Newton invent a formula that for 200 years neither the cosmological constant nor the force was measured
    How did Piso measure in his human eye 1 tooth or a time of 0.000053 seconds?
    And more

    (Argument 104) Fake missiles that reach space
    This is only 3 of the entire arsenal:
    1. Really amazing. Take a look at it and tell me the truth what you think
    The US Navy launched an Atlas rocket into space in 2015. In the first 3 minutes it was a successful launch and the satellite was in the sky, but we noted that there was an amazing natural phenomenon due to the weather.
    what's the problem Someone filmed the entire launch and the natural phenomenon with an amateur camera
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqEw1yz7aFs&sns=em
    Time 03:15
    What do you see - you see that the missile actually went back down and the fire came out of it, and this whole amazing natural phenomenon is because of the missile that exploded.
    So tell me, how can you believe that the communication satellite of the Atlas missile is really in space?

    2. This connects to the launch of SpaceX Iridium 4 - from December 2017 that the entire western US saw an amazing phenomenon in the sky and even Musk joked that it was aliens who did it.
    And of course the launch was successfully launched and the satellites are in space.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFrFe4MKfco
    Shot from an amateur camera.
    Sorry, but it looks exactly the same sight in the sky as the Atlas rocket did. The missile exploded in the air, its boosters are also seen doing slaloms that emit fire.
    Sorry, the Irodium 4 satellites did not reach space. The rocket exploded on the way and made an impressive spectacle

    3. The European Ariane rocket. VA 219 through VA 234 missions were launched between 2014-2016.
    Here you can get an impression of the missile's missions
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ariane_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019)
    When the missile flies up into space and you see the earth from below, it turns out that the picture is the same in all of them....they use the same film. After the video this guy posted, I made sure and looked at the official broadcasts of the missile myself - it's the same thing.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edckAyDkJ40
    Time 1:05:32 - must see! All nine launches the picture you see is the same! Look at yourselves.
    So is it possible to believe that the Ariane missile put satellites in space?

    (Argument 105) Maintenance of the space station
    It's not a major argument, but it's interesting
    As I said I was an armorer. At first on a tank and then on a chariot 3.
    I don't need to tell you how many treatments we did.
    One hour in the morning of Talat, treatments while moving, treatments at the end of movement at the end of the day of Talat, and a half-day treatment every Thursday TPSH.
    And how many failures there were, yes also in the chariot. Malfunctions in the computer, in the fire control system, in the fire station, in the various cells, in the connection, and in any system that exists.
    And the funny thing is that many times you don't touch the tank for a week - you have more malfunctions.
    And how many spare parts, how many we used.
    And all this is done by 4 crew members for only one tank.

    Let's go to the submarine.
    A few months ago, 44 ​​submariners disappeared in Argentina.
    So in the submarine (which is smaller than the space station) there are say 30-50 crew members. And I'm sure there are many faults there, and many treatments.
    So you ask yourself - since most of the time (not during overlap) there are only 3 astronauts how can they take care of this monster? There are hundreds of different systems, most of them are life-sustaining - if one of them breaks down, you die - there is no air, a hole is opened, there is no heating, etc. (unlike in a tank, even if something breaks down, you are still alive).
    How can 3 handle all of this? At the same time they do experiments and research.
    Do you know what it is to "do pre-departure maintenance" (the meaning here is 24-hour maintenance) for a space station to go through all the systems and check them, and replace spare parts? It will only take them a week to go through everything.
    I remind you that most of the systems there are 20 years old, so rest assured that there are faults there.
    Sorry, it doesn't work.

    Continue in part 2

  136. I think Matan is right about one thing, the waves can indeed hide part of the ship/tower on the horizon,
    *But* the hiding depends very much on my height, the height of the waves, and their distance from me, it is true that if I watch from a height of one meter above sea level, and at a distance of one km from me there is a wave with a height of two meters, then it will hide me 10 meters at a distance of 10 km "m and 50 meters at a distance of 50 km (actually it is possible that more due to the curvature of the land),

    It is very easy to avoid this problem, simply observe from a height of more than 4 or 5 meters above sea level, it is rare that there are waves at such a height and you can also check it in advance and go even higher if necessary, which completely eliminates the effect of the waves on the observed horizon and if still We see that a ship disappears from the bottom first (we see clearly, and after a while the upper end also disappears beyond the horizon) this is a conclusive evidence of the sphericity of the earth

    In the two videos that I brought in my response, (as well as the observation of Nissim from the top of the mountain) this problem does not exist, in one it is a calm lake with waves only tens of centimeters high and in the other two the observation is made from a height of 5 meters and in addition not at the depth of the sea but on the coastline, where the waves in no way They don't even come close to 5 meters high.

  137. giving,

    I know what, I'm sorry I called you Ehbel (I see you were offended) but understand that you are saying things that are simply delusional.

    You didn't answer the points I raised and I'm still waiting:

    1. How is it that no plane to this day has reached the end of the world? After all, thousands of planes flew in every possible direction, how come none of them reached the end of the world? To what huge abyss? Are all pilots liars?

    2. If we never went into space then how did you conclude that the earth is flat? According to what?

    3. Your wave model cannot explain why you only see half a ship when it is over the horizon as you see in the video. I told you, if they didn't hide it when it was 500 meters away from you, then they won't hide it when it's thousands of kilometers away, because just as the ship is getting smaller, so the waves are getting smaller in the same ratio, so how will they suddenly hide it?

    4. What about the moon, and the planets we see in our telescopes? Mars, Jupiter, Saturn... Why aren't they flat like Earth? How do you explain that?

    Waiting for your answers.

  138. So-and-so 321 –
    I will answer everything for you later in detail

    Miracles miracles miracles
    I will answer everything for you later

    and to the arrogant opponent
    Just see how you don't understand -
    Let me ask you a riddle: in a round world - you are now on a plane in New York leaving the airport. The pilot looks in the compass where east is azimuth 90 and starts flying in a straight line all the time. The pilot no longer uses a computer or a compass. From New York he flew thousands of kilometers in a straight line. What will his route be?
    A. New York - Great Britain - China - Los Angeles - New York
    B. New York - South Africa! – South of Australia! - Mexico - New York

    99.9% of people, including you, the arrogant one, will say that it is answer A! This is the logic and we are used to thinking like this.
    But this is not true!
    The answer is B - because if you don't make adjustments and direction corrections to the north all the time, you are making a course
    Great-circle of New York.
    From the questions you ask here, I want to say that you don't know everything, so again a little modesty.

    I will answer everything for everyone
    Good Day
    giving

  139. giving
    On a beautiful day you can see hundreds of kilometers. You can lie as much as you want, but you have to remember that repeating a lie does not make it the truth. are you able to understand it

    Explain to me how I saw the top of a mountain and its base. No stories, no links to liars' websites, and no thinking that we are retarded.

    Please - how can I see the top of a mountain in the sea without seeing its base.

    no lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  140. giving
    Get over the assumption that I'm not lying and I'm not stupid okay?

    The photo you referenced is not taken from the other side of Lake Michigan. that's it. You don't take an idiot and make him god. And you take God and make him an idiot...

  141. rival
    Here is another nice link -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

    They have an explanation for not falling: there are huge walls of ice at the end of the world.

    Think about that half of the people in the world have a double digit IQ (at best). For Matan and his friends it is probably even single digits.

  142. Rival, Nissim, Matan, Matan's friend, so-and-so, Polish

    There is a reasonable chance that Matan is indecisive about us. We will wait to see if and how he will answer the question about the piezo experiment. Maybe he will admit to a mistake or go underground as it is written: giving in secret.

  143. Miracles,

    This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen, it's unbelievable that there are people who actually believe this.

    I wonder how they explain that no plane or ship has ever reached the edge of this flat earth 😀 Is there some barrier or something that doesn't allow getting closer? 🙂 How come there isn't even one photo of the abyss at the end?

  144. so-and-so 321,

    I just wanted to tell you that your comment has been released. It was blocked for the reason I told you, the word "t-h-t" appeared there twice 🙂

    You raised a nice point about the darkness in the USA when it is daylight here, apparently the USA is also a conspiracy and there is actually no such place 😀

  145. Ok, do it, I see that my response has been published in full, you have to go back to 5:33 on February 19.02.18, XNUMX, where it is.

  146. Continued (Part 2)

    Before we discuss all the evidence you brought, let's look at it a little from above:

    There is so much evidence that the Earth is indeed a sphere, and that there are indeed satellites, here is an incomplete list:

    (Argument 10) The reality is that when we look at the sea from a distance, things that are far away from us will go and be covered from the bottom up until they disappear completely, even if we watch from a height of tens of meters - higher than any wave that can hide the ship from us - and no matter how zoomed we watch it, It will remain the same, and no, it's not about optical illusions, you can see it clearly (Matan, I'm ready to argue with you about interpretation but not about facts, it's reality, as every sailor and pilot knows) there are tons of videos that show it, in one of which (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVa2UmgdTM4&t=2s ) One person stands on the edge of a lake with a telescope, a helicopter flies from his place to the other side of the lake and slowly descends to land, you see in the telescope how the helicopter lowers and lowers and then it just descends to the other side (the opposite from above... (I try to avoid words that could block me as the words of an opponent )) at the water line and hidden by them, when the observer with the telescope turns to the helicopter pilot in contact it turns out that he is at a height of about 10 meters above the ground!. In another, someone looks through a telescope from the Tel Aviv beach to the Hadera chimneys and clearly shows how over 100 meters of the opposite upper part of the chimneys are covered by water, moreover, he makes an exact calculation according to all the data (the distance from the telescope to the chimneys, its height above the sea -5 meters-, the height of the chimneys and the hidden part) and wonder and wonder the calculation shows that the radius of the earth is about 6,371 km (of course the degree of accuracy is limited by this method) here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrihjP5tTTM&t=29s . So it's true, videos on YouTube are not perfect proofs but they demonstrate what is well known to anyone who has an arm and a leg (and even a finger...) on the subject. And Matt, enough with the part of "at first you can't see anything with the eye and then when you get closer with the zoom the ship is revealed" true the ship is clearly revealed, but only its top chopchick and after a little more time it also disappears no matter how much you zoom in (and as I wrote before they won't help You don't have waves and no optical illusions or language illusions)

    post Scriptum. I think you are right about one thing, the waves can indeed hide the lower part of a ship/tower on the horizon, *but* the concealment depends very much on my height, the height of the waves, and their distance from me, it is true that if I watch from a height of one meter above sea level, and the distance One kilometer from me there is a wave with a height of two meters, so it will hide me 10 meters at a distance of 10 km and 50 meters at a distance of 50 km (actually I think more due to the curvature of the earth),
    It is very easy to avoid this problem, simply observe from a height of more than 4, 5 meters, it is rare that there are waves at such a height and you can check it in advance to go even higher, another thing: in the two videos above this problem does not exist, in one it is a calm lake with waves at a height of tens of centimeters only and in both cases the observation is made from a height of 5 meters and in addition not at the depth of the sea but on the coastline.

  147. Well, I don't have the patience to wait for my response to be approved (it's been 16 hours already) I'm going to publish it in parts in the hope that everything will be published

    Well:

    Hi Matan,

    Let's do something like this, each significant evidence or argument is numbered with a 2 or 3 digit number at the beginning or end, and we conclude that everyone must refer to each numbered claim as above that his friend presents (regard includes everything: you are right, you are wrong because... and everything in between ), this way we will have to refer to every proof and not the one that we feel like or find easy, and it will also be clear exactly what we are talking about and we will not have to explain everything from the beginning every time, (if it is about several videos that show the same point or different parts of one argument we can Add letters after the number for example 45a, 45b, 45c, what do you say? I undertake in any case to refer to every numbered claim you present.

    Now to our business: look, on any issue in the world that you are trying to discuss whether it is true or not, there are 2 ways to approach it, one way is to look for specific, pointed evidence or rebuttals, for example the argument with the ship disappearing over the horizon, or all the astronaut videos you bring up, and there Another way, to look at the subject - from a perspective, that is to say, for example, does it make sense from an overall point of view.

    In one of the previous comments, someone wrote a nice example of this, I quote:
    You know when someone asks you a very difficult riddle, you think and think and it seems to you that there is no way in the world to solve it
    But your friend says that there is also an answer to the riddle, in such a situation there is a kind of urge to walk with your head against the wall and believe that there is no answer to the riddle, it seems so impossible!!!

    Here you have to take a step back and think logically, it's true that I can't think of any solution and it seems intractable, but there is someone here (whom I trust) who tells me that there are, so there are, there are surprises in life and I don't know everything. End quote.

    It is possible to discuss from a narrow point of view only the video/proof that is placed in front of me and if I cannot disprove it or find a satisfactory explanation then that's it I will be convinced, another way is to look at it from a broader point of view that takes into account the rest of the evidence, the fact that I don't know everything in the world, The fact that evidence often seems like conclusive proof, but when you think about it again, you find out that it is not so, etc., etc., I guess it also happened to you more than once that you were sure of something or you thought you remembered something 100% and in the end it turned out that you were wrong, it happens, we are sons A person and people make mistakes sometimes, they don't think of all the possibilities, they don't know all the knowledge and experience their husband has, etc. This is why it is wrong to refer only to specific proofs but also to look at the issue in an overall view.

  148. rival
    Yes, 30 thousand feet. A pilot is taught "to maintain altitude - put the nose on the horizon". The intention is that the velocity vector will be directed to the horizon, that is - there will be no vertical component.
    Fighter planes have an overhead display on which the horizon line is drawn. At low altitudes - this line really coincides with the horizon outside, but it sits above the horizon when flying high.

    Yesterday you were at sea and the weather was wonderful: unlimited visibility (and 10 cm on the beach....). You saw very nicely a sharp and clear horizontal line, which is not what you would expect to see if the world were flat. Beyond the horizon line - see snowy peaks on distant mountains, but only the peaks.

    Do you know the Dunning-Kruger complex? Read about it and you will immediately recognize Matan …. There really are people like that in the world. Matan gave some links to YouTube - read the comments of the idiots there. These are the same people who believe that they did not land on the moon, that vaccines are bad, that the world is not warming and that homeopathy works.

  149. Two things are completely unclear to me with Matan's claims:

    1. How does he know that the earth is flat if according to him we have never looked at it from space? How does he know that it is actually flat and not round?!

    2. If his claim is true and the earth is flat, then every ship that sails far towards the horizon should reach a huge abyss!! How is it that no ship or plane has ever reached such an abyss?? Everyone lies???

  150. Miracles,

    I understand, thanks for the explanation! That is, you say that in a spherical world (like ours) the horizon should decrease much faster as you increase in height, compared to a flat world where the height also decreases, but much more slowly.

    And I assume you meant to say 30 thousand feet?

  151. I will wait for the long response of so-and-so 321 and then respond to everyone including the opponent
    Viriv - thanks for the explanation why the messages are delayed
    Nissim - at noon I answered you why you don't see from a telescope, if they finally publish (refer only to the second and third message - I wrote the first message that I didn't understand what you meant by "high altitude"....I lost the token only after the publication...)

    giving

  152. rival
    So-and-so 123 is right.

    Let's assume the world is flat and infinite. In this case the horizon line is the intersection of your line of sight "with infinity" - which is one of the definitions of limiting lines. Look again at the example of the table. Calculate the angle. Now - start increasing the table more and more. The angle to the horizon will decrease.

    Let's assume a finite flat world. In this case the angle to the horizon can be calculated as a function of height.

    I know that at 30 the angle to the horizon is about 3 degrees. Height 30 is 9 km. According to the 1:60 rule, the distance to the horizon will be 180 km (an accurate calculation gives 171 km). Matan apparently claims that the radius of the world is 180 km....

    If you assume a spherical world - the angle I saw gives a radius of 6600 km.

    Do you understand Matan says that if you travel 180 km you will fall from the world...

  153. so-and-so 321,

    Thank you, I understand. I also gave Matan some points that I would like to see how he would address them.

    As for blocking comments, it is enough that you wrote something like: "The ship sinks below the horizon" but without the hyphen (a foul word) and your comment will be blocked 🙂 It is very important to note that there are no such combinations in the message.

  154. To the opponent,

    You forget that the height to which you rise above the table is a significant percentage of the length of the entire table, if the table was 8,000 km long for example, you would have to rise almost 14 kilometers just to open an angle of only a tenth of a degree! (trigonometry)

    By the way, you are invited to the long response I wrote today (19.02.18) in the morning, it has not yet been approved for publication (hey, what's the matter?) but when it is approved you can scroll back and see it.

  155. Miracles,

    "Matan - the horizon line lowers when you fly high. Please explain this on the assumption of a flat world.'

    I didn't understand, are you claiming that in a flat world the horizon line shouldn't go down? When I put my head on a flat table I see its edge (the "horizon") at an angle of about 20 degrees from my eyes. When I get up and stand now I see the edge of the table at an angle of 70 degrees from my eyes, that is the low horizon line. So what am I missing in your explanation?

  156. And after I left hummus first……. You wrote "high altitude" and I thought that high altitude was from buildings and only after sending the message did I realize that it must be from an airplane (admittedly, I was not focused and answered you while doing something else)

    Now the answer to your question:
    First, see what a certain 321 wrote a few days ago:
    "But you forget that when you look at great distances on the surface of the earth, the thick atmosphere absorbs and scatters a lot of the light along the way, so something beyond 20-30 km will look dark and hazy"
    There are visibility limitations due to the air. It doesn't matter if you are on a flat or round world, you can't see very far. especially over water.
    Even if you go to Everest, and you find a cloudless day, and in theory (in a flat and round world) you can see for many hundreds of kilometers, because of the limitations of the atmosphere and the air, it will be difficult for you to see hundreds of kilometers away.

    But what, on frosty days when the air is cold, then yes you can see for greater distances.
    Here is a famous photo that someone took on the shores of Lake Michigan, he was on the Michigan side and took a picture of the Chicago skyscraper line.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLlNKy5j_O8

    The distance is 60 miles (96 km), and he managed to photograph Chicago. In a round world, there is no way he would have been able to take a picture because there is curvature (the drop is about 700 meters and he took the picture at a height of 2 meters from the beach - all the buildings are lower than the height of 700 meters).
    So of course, the news reporter winds up (the day after because they must have been trying for a good reason) and explains that he shouldn't have seen it, but was able to take the picture because….. the light was bent. Yes, keep believing. The light was bent...

    I will answer everything in the evening

  157. Following on from the previous message - if of course you meant at high altitude - "on a plane" - above Hadera is something else of course.
    Regarding the telescope, it is clear that you will not see to a distance of 300 km because there are limitations of the atmosphere. Especially over the water.

  158. I'm busy today, I'll answer everything in the evening.
    But miracles - you wrote that you can see Cyprus from a room at a high altitude???? 300 km? I understand it right? Are you sure?

    I told you about curvature formula:
    The hidden drop - that is, the hidden part is km squared times 8 cm.
    There is a site where you enter the data and it calculates for you:
    https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
    If I put a distance of 300 km, and suppose the height of Hadera is 50 meters - you know how much Cyprus is supposed to be hidden under the curvature - 6 km high!!! (and 5 km altitude with refraction taken into account). This means that if there is a mountain in Cyprus at a height of 4,999 meters - you will never see it!
    I took, for example, Mount Olympus in the Troodos Mountains, which rises to a height of 1,952 meters. You understand that if you add another 3 km to this mountain up to a height of 4,952 meters, you still won't see it!!!!!!!

    Second case, I am large and I put that my height in Hadera is 1,000 meters. Cyprus will still be hidden because of the curvature 2.75 km high!!! (and 2.13 km high with refraction taken into account).
    Do you understand what I'm saying? - Even if you stand in Hadera at a height of 1 km, you will not be able to see that high mountain in Cyprus that is 300 km away from you because it is still hidden due to the curvature.

    So this way - if you really saw Cyprus from Hadera as you wrote, and it was not a super mistake - Syrian - according to science in a round world you will not be able to see it in your lifetime.

    giving

  159. giving
    From a room at a high altitude I can see Cyprus with my own eyes. From my house in memory, with a powerful telescope - I can't see.

    A reasonable explanation, or an admission that you are talking nonsense.

  160. giving
    You wrote "Yes, all the people of the round world - just like you didn't answer me how it is that the earth shook and Tesla didn't, how do you explain the astronaut who disappeared and his image fades and disappears? who is crazy Who still believes that the station is in space?"

    I explained to you exactly why the Tesla did not shake. Not pretty. I will explain to you again, because it is difficult for you (I think the polite term is challenged).... The camera is located on a pole that is attached to the car. That's all 🙂

    Matan - the horizon line lowers when flying high. Please explain this on the assumption of a flat world. No lies and no excuses - explain or admit that you are a liar. And also explain why I know exactly how to calculate the lowering angle (I did it as part of my job - I'll explain to you if you want).

    I told you about the mountains in Hawaii. You see in the passage that the world is not flat!!!! You see the top of the distant volcano and not its base. This volcano comes out of the sea and there is nothing that can hide the base

    Listen - leave me with fake pictures of spaceships and astronauts. What does it matter to my claims? So they faked the landing on the moon, all 500 thousand people who worked on the project. They also didn't put laser reflectors there that are used to this day to measure the range to the moon. Leave it all. Just explain what I asked!!

    And no lies, okay, Matan? My squadron commander was killed in the space shuttle Columbia - I will not let a creature like you damage his courage and integrity.

  161. Hi Matan,

    Let's do something like this, each significant evidence or argument is numbered with a 2 or 3 digit number at the beginning or end, and we conclude that everyone must refer to each numbered claim as above that his friend presents (regard includes everything: you are right, you are wrong because... and everything in between ), this way we will have to refer to every proof and not the one that we feel like or find easy, and it will also be clear exactly what we are talking about and we will not have to explain everything from the beginning every time, (if it is about several videos that show the same point or different parts of one argument we can Add letters after the number for example 45a, 45b, 45c, what do you say? I undertake in any case to refer to every numbered claim you present.

    Now to our business: Look, any issue in the world that you are trying to discuss whether it is true or not, there are 2 ways to approach it, one way is to look for specific, pointed evidence or rebuttals, for example the argument with the ship disappearing over the horizon, all the astronaut videos you bring up, and there is a way Otherwise, to look at the subject - from a perspective, that is to say, for example, does it make sense from an overall point of view.

    In one of the previous comments, someone wrote a nice example of this, I quote:
    You know when someone asks you a very difficult riddle, you think and think and it seems to you that there is no way in the world to solve it
    But your friend says that there is also an answer to the riddle, in such a situation there is a kind of urge to walk with your head against the wall and believe that there is no answer to the riddle, it seems so impossible!!!

    Here you have to take a step back and think logically, it's true that I can't think of any solution and it seems intractable, but there is someone here (whom I trust) who tells me that there are, so there are, there are surprises in life and I don't know everything. End quote.

    It is possible to discuss from a narrow point of view only the video/proof that is placed in front of me and if I cannot disprove it or find a satisfactory explanation then that's it I will be convinced, another way is to look at it from a broader point of view that takes into account the rest of the evidence, the fact that I don't know everything in the world, The fact that evidence often seems like conclusive proof, but when you think about it again, you find out that it is not so, etc., etc., I guess it also happened to you more than once that you were sure of something or you thought you remembered something 100% and in the end it turned out that you were wrong, it happens, we are sons A person and people make mistakes sometimes, they don't think of all the possibilities, they don't know all the knowledge and experience their husband has, etc. This is why it is wrong to refer only to specific proofs but also to look at the issue in an overall view.

    Before we discuss all the evidence you brought, let's look at it a little from above:

    There is so much evidence that the Earth is indeed a sphere, and that there are indeed satellites, here is an incomplete list:

    (Argument 10) The reality is that when we look at the sea from a distance, things that are far away from us will go and be covered from the bottom up until they disappear completely, even if we look at it from a height of tens of meters - higher than any wave that can hide the ship from us - and no matter with what zoom we look at it, It will remain the same, and no, it's not about optical illusions, you can see it clearly (Matan, I'm ready to argue with you about interpretation but not about facts, this is reality, as every sailor and pilot knows) there are tons of videos that show it, in one of which (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVa2UmgdTM4&t=2s ) One person stands on the edge of a lake with a telescope, a helicopter flies from his place to the other side of the lake and slowly descends to land, you see in the telescope how the helicopter lowers and lowers and then it simply descends below the water line and is hidden by them, when the observer in the telescope turns to the helicopter pilot in connection It turns out that he is at a height of about 10 meters above the ground! In another, someone looks through a telescope from the Tel Aviv beach to the Hadera chimneys and clearly shows how more than 100 meters from the bottom of the chimneys are covered by water (Matan, there are no waves at a height of 100 meters, what to do), moreover, he makes an exact calculation based on all the data ( The distance from the telescope to the chimneys, its height above sea level, the height of the chimneys and the hidden part) and wonder and wonder the calculation shows that the radius of the earth is about 6,371 km (of course the degree of accuracy is limited by this method) here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrihjP5tTTM&t=29s . So it's true, videos on YouTube are not perfect proofs but they demonstrate what is well known to anyone who has an arm and a leg (and even a finger...) on the subject. And Matt, enough with the part of "at first you can't see anything with the eye and then when you get closer with the zoom the ship is revealed" true the ship is clearly revealed, but only its top chopchick and after a little more time it also disappears no matter how much you zoom in (and as I wrote before they won't help You don't have waves and no optical illusions or language illusions)

    (Argument 11) Similarly, only regarding the sun, the more you climb, the more the sunset is delayed (for example: from a height of 100 meters the sunset is delayed by 98 seconds compared to sea level), Matan, in a flat world, when thousands of kilometers of flat earth separate you from the sun, You will have to climb much, much more than 100 meters to see the sun on the horizon again (if 8,000 km separate you from the "end of the world" you will have to climb 13.96 km to expand the field of vision/raise the sun even if only by a tenth of a degree! !!)

    (argument 12) Foucault's pendulum

    (Argument 13) Well, the truth is that this should have been the first thing, there are tens of thousands of photographs of the Earth from satellites and spacecraft, (I think you will be able to find one without a link) of course you will claim that everything is fake but note, it is not about one or two satellites, but on many hundreds, which are operated by very different countries and entities and not infrequently rivals of each other, also today it is possible to build tiny satellites (cubesats) costing tens of thousands of individual dollars so that any school or just people with enough money can build them one of these, and besides Of that, you have to base it on something external when you claim that etc. are a complete lie, you can't deny tens of thousands of photographs just because it doesn't fit your agenda. Even if you claim that all are fake, my claim is still very weighty, you have to bring very good evidence to reject it and not just throw it away, oh it's all fake. And don't forget questions are not proofs, it is only natural to have questions and misunderstandings for someone who is not well versed in the field.
    And just like that think logically (argument 13a) there are several satellite companies and rocket companies in the world (for example Imersat, SES, Iridium, Intelsat, BTRC, Telkom Indonesia, and much more) Each such company has huge buildings that it bought or rents, thousands of employees, expenses and revenues of billions a year, what do they do there in your opinion??? Why would a young engineer looking for a job agree to sit and do nothing and on the way to work on the whole world? And not one but many thousands! And even if you claim that the junior engineers are sure that they are really launching satellites and only the seniors know the secret, still, someone is paying for this work, billions of dollars!!! Why? Just to work on everyone?!? It makes absolutely no sense.

    Even if they do work on all of us, why do we need to make such a story out of this, so many companies, launches, satellites, a space station that has been continuously manned for years, satellites (and astronauts) that explode on the way to space, etc., etc., there was not much, much simpler. Just tell the truth. B. Lie to everyone but as little as necessary without any dramas, let's say find some reason why it is almost impossible to launch satellites but only a few? Why spend billions on dozens of "as if" launches into space a year? Think for a moment how crazy it is, to launch dozens of rockets every year, to build satellites for hundreds of millions of dollars per satellite (we concluded that the engineers who build them do their job faithfully and only the higher ranks lie, or the engineers also sit all day long...) that will not get anywhere, and all That's why to work on all of us as if the earth is round? Let it be a triangle, why would it matter to anyone to invest so much money and effort??? Just for example, look at Elon Musk CEO and founder of SpaceX, he is a guy who works very, very hard, he worked to recruit the most talented engineers to work alongside him, why??? Even if we say you are right, why does he have to work so hard?!?

    post Scriptum. Don't get confused, it's true that I wrote to you a moment ago that questions are not proofs, but that's only in scientific and engineering fields, I'm talking to you about simple logic and besides, it's true that these aren't really absolute proofs, but these are by definition very strong points that make your theory very difficult.

    (Argument 14) GPS satellites, everyone these days can navigate according to the GPS satellites that are located in space, and as Nisim wrote to you, GPS (and a satellite phone too, by the way) works at any point on the earth, including in the middle of the sea where there are no cellular antennas.

    (Argument 15) Where do you think Ilan Ramon and his six friends are? Locked in NASA basements? (Again, this is not absolute proof, but really…)

    (Argument 16) How can you explain why when in the USA day is night, in your opinion we all live on a kind of huge table? (Or that in your opinion there is no such place called the United States, they just work on all of us, that would really explain a lot of things...)

    (Argument 17) Do you have any idea how many people work in and around the space industry? Astronomers, space agency people, technicians, engineers who build satellites, and much more, hundreds of thousands of people around the world if not more, talented, expert, serious people, do you think they don't know your questions? Do you really think the astronomers etc are complete idiots who don't think about the questions you raised? Or are they threatening everyone to keep quiet? It's not serious.
    Do you have any idea what kind of sensation it would be if scientists discovered that the earth is flat/there are no satellites/another invention, those who went against the "link of silence" would be honored and published worldwide! How is it that there is no serious scientist who has reached the "research of the truth"? (And again this is not real proof, but your theory is losing its plausibility)

    (Argument 18) Similar to argument 16 only with the stars, how is it that from anywhere on the earth you can see other stars, and exactly the way they would look if the earth were a sphere? (as it really is)

    (Argument 19) Every evening and morning dozens of satellites can be seen with the naked eye, all of them match the times and orbits across the dome of the sky to the forecast given days and weeks in advance, what other explanation can there be other than that they are really satellites, I am attaching a few more videos that show the passage of the space station across the sun And the moon, as well as just satellites (at your request). Pay attention, you said that you don't believe the previous video I gave you because the person who published it is an engineer "from the inside, no problem this time there are just people here from around the world also from Israel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDckLwhb_7Q (I know him myself). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT1wSm_iK6o , this is a very high satellite (according to the speed), and no, there is no chance that it is a bird, neither the speed nor the shape. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waxqSCEFkBo . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qROmsXf8-fg And there is more and more endlessly, ask any astronomy enthusiast with a telescope and he will tell you how he or his friend managed to photograph the passage of the space station and satellites across the sun and moon (myself included.)

    (Argument 20) There is another point here, did you doubt whether what you saw in the sky was indeed a satellite (leave a space station, let's simplify it, some kind of satellite), there is clear proof that it is indeed a satellite, people who are hundreds of kilometers away from you see it too together with you! (Of course they see the satellite lower on the horizon and less powerful) (By the way: I personally saw the space station from Modi'in several times and spoke on the phone with my brother who lives in Jerusalem who also saw it, along with me, when the distance between us is 25 km, we both saw it right above us at the time) Really Matan, what else could it be?

    What I wanted to tell you with the parable of the planes is that when a person is not knowledgeable in a certain field, he can mistakenly think of certain claims as conclusive evidence, while in reality they stem from his lack of understanding of the said subject.
    As for all the videos you brought up about the space station, I haven't gone through them all yet but as you were told before I'm sure video experts will explain most if not all of the claims, especially since there is so much quality evidence that the space station is indeed there, and even if not, me and you Not experts in video and graphics, we don't have the tools to judge it. And in general, you ignore an entire video (out of countless other videos) that shows zero gravity and jumps only when there is something there that strengthens your position (without having a deep understanding of graphics, etc.), a bit funny, if I may, reminds me of a lawyer who can't handle With the evidence of the other side, then he will handle the wording, wait, why did you choose this word and not another? (These are long sections, on a plane you can experience 0 gravity for much shorter periods of time, only 20-30 seconds) True, you need to find answers to all the questions you asked, but their weight as evidence is very small, and even less when you are not knowledgeable in the field.

    As for what I did manage to see: the part with the face appearing as a satellite deployed from the space shuttle Challenger, it is simply a reflection of one of the astronauts from inside the shuttle... No proof here.)

    Regarding the video with the astronaut that fades as soon as he leaves the side: well it doesn't fade but kind of flickers, I don't know what it is (fake of the video presenter? Original official editing by NASA, who made an interesting effect?) but that's not how an object coming out of the screen looks Green, it should disappear, not flash.
    The part with the astronaut walking behind with what looks like harnesses...come on, it doesn't even deserve a comment, is that what you call proof???

    You wrote to me: Today I'm in a good mood, so I'm also flowing with you:
    Please show me the following: a. An image of a satellite (not a space station) taken from a telescope from Earth.
    B. Show me a photograph that detects light from a distance of 400 km - but not from a satellite that I claim does not exist. Ground-ground photography. am waiting.
    A. I already put one but here is another one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdZWq3eBONQ . And here is a third https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-VMN-d0D5s . True, it's nothing, but that's how it is, satellites are smaller and not as impressive as the space station B. Since the earth is round, it is impossible to see anything from such a distance on the surface of the earth, what's more, the thick atmosphere will darken and make the image very foggy, unlike a photograph upwards, where the air gets thinner as you go up.
    I saw the "video that explains the ships that are seen over the horizon" there is nothing there, on the contrary, you can clearly see that a nearby ship is visible in the upper half and a more distant ship is indeed visible but really barely, only the upper edge sticks out.

    And last but not least regarding the astronaut Don Pettit says: "I would die to reach the moon in our second son. The problem is that we don't have the technology anymore. We had it, but we destroyed it." Once again you take something that is a piece of evidence and treat it as if it were the queen of evidence, he simply meant (or could, it doesn't matter (because there is no proof here), even though it is clear to any reasonable person that he did mean it) that NASA chose not to continue With the flights to the moon (mainly for budgetary reasons) and so over time this ability disappeared, it is clear that it can be done again, but for that it would be necessary to rebuild all the hardware since then, which is not easy considering the many years that have passed and the major technological changes that have happened since then, or to develop similar tools New ones, something that will take time and cost a lot of money, that's all. He only used slightly picturesque and exaggerated language, just like when someone says that a certain accident happened on a red road, you will jump up and say, hey, but the road is black, why did he say red?.

    And last but not least regarding the disappearance of the original Apollo tapes, a. This is only about Apollo 11 and only about the original coils that were on the moon, of course there are copies of them. as well as the original documentation of all the other Apollo missions, still sitting in the vaults intact. True, it's a bit strange, but omissions happen sometimes, it's really not enough to convince me that the earth is actually flat.

  162. giving

    Here, modestly:

    Why do you need to observe a single tooth in a piezo experiment? I'm telling you that I made a variation of it myself, and I didn't need any tooth but only the brightness level.

    What's wrong with a laser? It is of course possible with a lamp as in the original experiment, but for what?

    So explain to me why it is not possible to measure the speed of light with a Piezo device by measuring only (negative) light peaks. Just that.

    And if it is possible - and it is possible, given - why did Piso need to observe a single tooth and not content himself with the simple way of light peaks.

  163. And by the way Matan,

    Is according to your theory only the earth flat? What about the Moon, Jupiter, Mars and the other planets that we can see clearly both with the eye and through telescopes? Are they flat too? If not, why is the earth flat? What caused this? And how did you even come to the conclusion that it is flat?

  164. Friend, we actually have a person here who claims that the earth is flat, who would have believed (until recently I thought it was a joke 🙂 )

    giving,

    Your claim that the sea waves hide the lower part of the ship and therefore it appears to be sinking on the horizon is a ridiculous claim, because as the ship moves away and gets smaller, the sea waves also get smaller in the same ratio. If they didn't hide the lower part of the ship from you when it was 500 meters away from you, then they won't hide it from you even when it is thousands of kilometers away from you, because when the ship is 50 times smaller, the sea waves are also 50 times smaller.

    Regarding the videos you brought, I promise you that if you ask people who deal with and specialize in video shooting they will give you a satisfactory answer, it's a shame that out of ignorance you draw stupid conclusions. Claiming that the earth is flat is just a joke.

  165. good week
    Her friends - I'm crazy enough to think the world is flat....do you think I'm moved by all your insulting and sarcastic comments? On the contrary, please continue it spurs me on. But a little modesty won't hurt you. Here are my answers.

    First of all, we will show you how to fake the space station - the space station uses: G 0 planes, harnesses, green screen, CGI, and the latest technology - augmented reality (and there are 50 more videos that can be found in addition):
    1. The winning proof that the space station is a fake - see the image of the astronaut fades as soon as he leaves the side - minute 00:37 - they use green screens
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIIjD3LU__c

    Yes, all the people of the round world - just like you didn't answer me how it is that the earth shook and Tesla didn't, how do you explain the astronaut who disappeared and his image fades and disappears? who is crazy Who still believes the station is in space?

    Additional evidence:

    2. You see an astronaut in the background...with harnesses
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHLrVHsOOYE

    3. Another use of harnesses - after rolling you see the guy on the right putting his hand behind the guy who did the rolling:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA

    4. Augmented reality - in a live broadcast there are several live layers - the background layer, the astronaut layer, another bone layer - an instructive explanation of the technology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJhL7y0ahUE
    5. Definitive proof of augmented reality - there was a glitch at the end of the broadcast and the image of the 3 astronauts was filled with colors - but note that the background, which is another layer, remains constant!
    Minute 02: 53
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E5nQ_3j5MA

    Yes, this is another conclusive proof that only their characters are swirling, and the background remains constant!!! You will learn something - this is augmented reality and it is used in the "space station".

    Other strange things:
    1. Chalder spacecraft 1983 - so they used models and not computers, and you see a face on the side while they deployed the satellite time 03:25 -
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pVm7p4nkwo&t=217s
    2. Astronaut Don Pettit says: "I would die to reach the moon in our second son. The problem is that we don't have the technology anymore. We had it, but we destroyed it." Sorry????? Have we destroyed the technology to reach the moon? And I'm the crazy one lol…….
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxJbQpdYINg
    3. NASA admits that all the original material of the moon landing is gone - the most important event for humanity, and they lost it....keep believing it friends, keep believing. Strings are being pulled on you and you believe in this organization.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q1l-jf3KqA

    Israel Shapira - I'll start with you
    I researched Piso's experiment in detail with Pizakaim from Israel and abroad in order to understand the experiment and its numbers.
    You are wrong and misleading and a little modesty wouldn't hurt, really.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolyte_Fizeau
    "In 1849, Fizeau calculated a value for the speed of light to a better precision than the previous value determined by Ole Rømer in 1676. He used a beam of light reflected from a mirror 8 kilometers away. The beam passed through the gaps between the teeth of a rapidly rotating wheel. The speed of the wheel was increased until the returning light passed through the next gap and could be seen".

    He put a gear wheel with 720 protruding teeth and another 720 holes between the teeth (gaps) and he turned the gear wheel up to a speed of 1562 revolutions per minute to notice that the light goes through the first hole, passes 1 tooth, and the light returns to the second hole. That is, 1 tooth passed that he noticed that the light came and went. And I already calculated that 18,744 (!) teeth passed in a second.
    And the question that no physicist could answer for me - how could he distinguish 1 tooth out of 18,744 teeth that pass in a second, or in a time of 0.000053?
    So Israel, cancel your appointment with the dentist and the stand-up artist, and make an appointment with Pizkai - what is the answer? (And you keep taking lasers at me (even in your last answer), it's not relevant!)
    I'm still waiting for answers

    Miracles miracles miracles
    Regarding Edison's lamp, you are right (here I am exaggerating), and they really used a lamp first. Please note that the note on the campfire I wrote about a 35 km range of Poco and not of Piso. Flowing with you that they detected excellent from a range of 35 km (although I don't believe it).
    Piezo - how did he detect an event that happened in 0.000053 seconds?
    And Foucault - how did he recognize an event that happened in 0.00023 seconds or how did he measure such a small angle?

    Regarding the horizon line - I have already said my opinion. I always ask you, did you say you were at an altitude of 20 km, did you see curvature?
    You didn't answer me - either you don't remember, or you're lying and you didn't fly at that height, or you saw the horizon straight, or you saw curvature. what's right?
    I didn't just ask you.
    One of the "myth busters" flew in a U2 plane at an altitude of 70,000 feet and of course it showed that there is curvature (minute 04:11). Where is the problem???? 3 seconds after he is in the cockpit – look at the horizon – he is…… straight!!!! (minute 04:14) – How do you explain that inside the plane you see the horizon line which is straight?
    I know the answer - from the outside use a fisheye lens. And how do you explain it?
    The "myth busters" also cooperate with the lie.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Liom-xUzvK0

    So-and-so 321
    You talk to me about science, science and science. How do you explain the videos at the beginning, emphasizing the astronaut whose image became a fade-away?
    1. First of all, you didn't respond to me about the reality regarding the car driving away on a large football field. Do you understand that even on a straight surface the car will disappear for you? And if you are higher, she will reappear and then disappear again, will you stay away? Do you understand this - it is the basis of everything. Is that you cancel it and you say that you will continue to see that you are 10 cm above the floor the car forever? Waiting for your reply regarding this.
    2. Don't say it's science and it's true. There is also logic in things here. I deliberately go back to Pizo because that is the basis of everything - if you and science tell me yes: "Pizo was able to identify 1 tooth (in a time of 0.000053)" and that's how science determined it to be true - I don't buy it. it's a lie! There are human limitations and there is logic in things.
    3. Further to that, I told you that at the beginning of the 15 seconds to the peak above me, and you thought that it was cosine 85 times the distance to the station, it came out to be 35 km, it still does not come out to 112 km. You can't tell me that a light that is 400 km above me right above my shoulder - it is horizontally 112 km from me - 90 km in the sea that I can't recognize at all.
    And after I see their fabrics inside the space station - how can I believe that they are there, how?
    4. The whole issue of planes - what was the purpose? Is it to show that you are moving at 500,000 km/h with the sun around the milky way so because it is a constant speed you feel nothing. Blessed is the believer
    5. Regarding the video you sent that spotted the space station passing in front of the sun.
    Let's check who did it - smarter every day
    Let's check who is it?
    He is an engineer with interests - how do I know?
    This guy is one of the few in the world who got permission and made a video at the Falcon XNUMX launch complex that launched the Tesla that you all still believe is in space.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImoQqNyRL8Y&t=11s
    I don't believe him. He is a partner in it.

    (Anecdote - see the rant of the video he made starting at 04:53 -
    For those who don't know - in the live launch of the Falcon Heavy, Space-X accidentally broadcast the same feed of one missile on the 2 screens of both missiles (that is, one feed of a missile was not broadcast at all).
    But this guy, was enthusiastic about the live broadcast - even though he recognized that the 2 screens looked the same - he was enthusiastic about the professionalism of the control room and even though it was the same he still thought it was 2 missiles. Of course he did not admit that he was wrong)

    Today I'm in a good mood, so I'm also streaming with you:
    Please show me the following:
    A. An image of a satellite (not a space station) taken from a telescope from Earth.
    B. Show me a photograph that detects light from a distance of 400 km - but not from a satellite that I claim does not exist. Ground-ground photography. am waiting.

    someone,
    This is the video that explains the ships that are seen over the horizon.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPK-cNfz2Eo
    The horizon is the meeting between the sky, your eyes, and the ramp of the water (the waves). that a ship is far beyond this line, then the waves hide its bottom first. The higher the waves (ramp), the faster the ship will stop and disappear. It's all perspective and has nothing to do with curvature.
    I am coming back again for miracles - I showed that you are on the beach with your eyes you do not recognize ships, and throughout history they understood that they disappeared because of the curvature.
    All the scientists in the past also because of this fact came to the conclusion that the world is round!!!!
    But with a magnifying device you suddenly recognize the ships, even though with the naked eye you thought they had disappeared from the horizon.
    Say perspective, not curvature.

    You also did not answer how you explain the partial lunar eclipse which is upside down - how the earth casts a shadow from above and not from below
    https://www.facebook.com/ronhagberg/posts/10155891202491166

    And the last thing that keeps me laughing - how do you explain that "we destroyed the technology to reach the moon again"?
    Lol
    And I'm the liar, oh miracles????? An astronaut tells you such a crazy thing, and I don't understand????

    You can still take the red ball of the matrix - after every email of mine, its price increases....buy as soon as possible.
    Oh sorry I was wrong, Nissim tells me that the price of the ball is going down because we destroyed the technology to reach space.

    Best regards

    giving

  166. giving,

    I will respond later at length, but for now,

    This is what you wrote to me: "Regarding the space station - I said that it was right above me (85 degree angle) for 30 seconds. That is, 15 seconds passed from the moment she was almost above me (if I were to pass you, then it would hit a settlement about 5 km from me) to the moment she was right above me (if I were to pass you, it would hit me).
    In these 15 seconds she traveled 112 km. And my question again. She was supposed to be at the beginning of the 15 seconds 90 km in the sea (a distance of 112 from me) - at a sharp angle from me, but here she is right almost above me in a settlement next to me located only 5 km. How can you explain that?
    Yes - continue to believe that you can see lights 100 meters long from a distance of 400 km. Just like Pizzo couldn't measure 0.000053 seconds even if he swore to me, so you can't see lights or the reflection of lights or whatever you want related to lights from a distance of 400 km. ” end quote

    You have basic errors in trigonometry here, a. When the station was visible to you at an angle of 85 degrees, its vertical would hit 35.4 km from you and not 5 as you wrote. B. 15 seconds from the moment the station was directly above you, it advanced 112. km, true, but at the end of those 15 seconds the angle from the horizon it was visible to you was 74.5.

    And anyway, you didn't measure the angle, it's just an estimate, how can you even prove any of this? Angles in the sky are something that can be easily mistaken, go measure and then we'll talk. And regarding seeing the lights, you repeat your mistake again: what does it have to do with believing or not believing??? I'm talking to you about science! Just calculate what the intensity of the light that is returned from the space station should be, if it does not match what we will actually observe in the sky then we will have something to talk about. And if you don't know how to calculate such a thing, consult someone who does (physicists, astronomers, etc., note that I did not ask you to believe every word that comes out of their mouths, just ask, you will be surprised to find detailed, well-founded and simple answers to all your "difficulties"), But don't think that if something "doesn't seem right" it's proof that it's not true.

    And by the way, you didn't answer the multitude of proofs I brought you in my previous message.

  167. Israel
    Edison's patent was for the use of a coal filament. The point is that Piezo had a very powerful light source invented decades before his experiment.
    Too bad you are such a liar. But - jokes with him, no?

    You probably know that there are many opaque Americans. Flat world, did not land on the moon, as treils, anti-vaccines, no warming and so on.
    But - the height of stupidity is a flat world...

  168. Please Eraf, maybe he didn't invent but he registered a patent for the light bulb..

    You will always find someone who thought of your idea first. Also E=mc^2 is not exactly Einstein's but an Italian engineer who arrived at it from a theory... Lasage!

  169. Matan (and Israel too)
    Edison didn't invent the light bulb, so give credit where it's due. Sir Humphrey Davy invented the lamp in 1806!! And his lamp was very strong. Matan - never let the facts confuse you!!! Edison didn't even invent the incandescent lamp - Frédéric Desmoulins invented it, in 1841. Edison wasn't born yet then….
    But Matan, leave facts.

    Matan - you don't even know high school math! In a flat world the horizon line is always at your height!!!!! That is, the angle to it is always 0. And I'll tell you again - the horizon line decreases with height. When flying low - put your "nose on the horizon" to maintain altitude. At high altitude - the nose must be above the horizon, and today the computer gives the pilot this angle.

    Let me tell you something else. A month ago I climbed a volcano in Hawaii called Mauna Kea - a mountain 4100 meters high. There is another mountain, 4000 meters high, 120 km away. The base of the second mountain is closer of course - about 90 km.
    Now, when I climbed the mountain - first the top of the second mountain (Hala-Kala) was revealed and then a little more. At the top of the mountain - you haven't seen the base yet, but you have seen the top of the mountain in a beautiful way.

    Now - there are many telescopes on this mountain and they let me look at one of the small ones (it was during the day). And what I saw in the telescope - the same part of the mountain only bigger!!!

    Matan, please, enough with the lies. In a flat world the distance to the horizon depends only on visibility. On a brighter day you can see further. In a round world, the distance to the horizon is limited by the height and curvature. In all the cases I told, the visibility was excellent.

    I remembered something else for you. In the past, my job was to design and build flight trainers. In flight trainers, there is a computer that draws the world (the truth - sometimes dozens of monstrous computers). At first, we would draw the world as flat, and play with the visibility to get the horizon line at the right distance. and what happened? Pilots complained that flying at altitude on a clear day it looked different. For example, when you fly over the sea and approach Israel, then you see the Jerusalem mountains before you see Tel Aviv (emphasis on a beautiful day!).

    When the star disappears behind the horizon, you can't even see it in a telescope. Matan, please don't lie about it. Not everyone is stupid!

    I gave you several examples that show that the world is round. I will ask again - how do you explain that the horizon drops by 3 degrees at an altitude of 30 thousand feet. Show me a simple calculation that in a flat world, with good visibility, it happens. You know what a sine is, right?

    The Freemasons are a real organization. Ben Franklin was a member of this organization. And also an acquaintance of mine is a friend there. They don't rule the world

    Giving - go ahead - an explanation to the horizon line and also to the mountain I saw. Otherwise - thank you for talking nonsense. It's not a shame (well, it is a shame, but it's still better to admit).

    I wouldn't be blunt with you, if you weren't constantly lying. It shows that what you describe is not what you really believe. Or are you a total idiot?

  170. giving

    Regarding the inaccuracies.

    What Edison invented is a light bulb, not a lamp, which was also in the Temple and is one of the symbols of the Jewish people for over 2000 years, and was also used in the Piezo experiment to produce light.

    Piso did not even count or refer to teeth or a single tooth at all, but only to the level of brightness of the light reflected from the distant mirror.

    There is no problem doing this, I did the experiment 4 years ago with a laser beam and I did not count or refer to the teeth at all. See also table on page 7 b:

    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00526667v1/document

    The measurement is of the light level, not of teeth.

    It's not 35 km but less than half, 8.7 km times 2.

    Shabbat Shalom.

  171. To everyone and before I say Shabbat Shalom

    1. The video that someone analyzed the image of the Tesla in space, that the ground shook and the car did not, is conclusive proof that this transmission is a fake and that it is not in space. No matter what you think of me.

    2. I do a lot of reserving and about two months ago I did reserving and of course I told them about the flat world. It turned out that 2 of my department (out of 20) are in the Masonic organization!!! (I swear on my life it's real!) One is actually a member of the association and the other has been offered several times to officially join and he told them he is waiting and for now doesn't want to. To the organization's credit, they are both really, really guns who have already come a long way in their lives. So at least they know how to choose their people there...

    So keep thinking it's only in Dan Brown movies. This is real !

    Israel Shapira
    See all your inaccuracies:
    First of all, Pizzo didn't have a lamp in 1849. Unfortunately, Edison invented it 30 years later... He only had a candle or a lantern.
    Second, he measured according to light changes (passed/not passed light) and noticed 1 tooth that passed (out of 18,744 teeth which is 0.000053 seconds).
    Third - and even if we go by your method that he measured the brightness peaks, the equation S=V*T always needs 2 variables to know the third one. He knew the way 16 km, so how according to the measurement of brightness peaks did he arrive at a time that is, again, 0.000053 seconds? What good is your clarity if there is no time? (And I'll go back and say that all the mathematical calculations of this experiment work out perfectly - 1562 revolutions per minute, 720 teeth in the wheel, 1 detected tooth - a speed of 313,000 km per second. There is only a physical problem - how the guy noticed it with his human eye).
    He was followed by Foucault in 1862 (Nissim's friend who made the Foucault Pendulum) and also measured the speed of light 298,000 km per second, and the problems are the same: 0.00023 seconds passed which no human eye can detect and he measured an angle (for a close range of several meters and not for a far range ) of 0.00023 degrees, which is less than a second of arc! (less than 1/3600 of the degree). And another problem is that he looked at a range of 35 km, and unfortunately Edison had not yet invented the light bulb, so how did he "shoot" a beam of light from a candle or lantern to a range of 35 km one way, 35 km back and deflect it with his rotating mirror? You make a huge bonfire - will you put a mirror 35 km away and see a reflection? This is so ridiculous.
    (And again - on purpose I am going to these scientists before the invention of the laser, the computer, etc.).
    This thing is critical because after them Einstein founded the theory of relativity on the basis of these measurements.

    For so-and-so 321
    I'll tell you what bothers me - science says it's true, and until a year ago I really believed everything, and then you come to check with critical eyes and you see that there is no way a human being could measure such things. And don't tell me they are geniuses and scientists and I'm not. I don't get it. Everyone has the right to investigate for themselves and check, and what to do, logic also speaks, and Pizzou could not detect with his eyes 1 tooth or a time of 0.000053 seconds, Foucault could not measure such a small time, such a small angle, and with a candle/lantern to a distance of 35 km M.
    Now, you talked about the sunset between 2 people of different heights to prove curvature. What is the connection? Anyone who climbs higher…..a greater angle of vision opens up for him!. Those who are by the sea can see the horizon at a distance of say 5-6 km, and with Nissim who is in Zichron Ya'akov at a high altitude, he sees his horizon at a distance of 30 km. This is not proof of anything. Even in a flat world it's like that.
    Go to a big soccer field. For the sake of the story, the field is 100 km long, there is no grass and everything is flat asphalt. Put your eye on your goal line 10cm off the ground and look towards the other goal. From you I drive a car towards the other gate that keeps moving away from you. Someday you will see her disappear! Is it because the pitch is round? After all, I said the field is flat. It disappears because it disappeared from the line you can see with your eyes, from your perspective.
    Let me show you a miracle! Raise your angle of vision another 20 cm in height and suddenly you will see the car! miracle!. She continues to move away from you and after a few minutes she disappears from you again! Is the field round? No, she disappears from your line of sight because of the perspective.
    Put a flag on the car - you will notice that before the car disappeared, but you will still see the flag! Because that's how the perspective goes.
    And so on.

    On my third question regarding the space station - I said it was directly above me (85 degree angle) for 30 seconds. That is, 15 seconds passed from the moment she was almost above me (if I were to pass you, then it would hit a settlement about 5 km from me) to the moment she was right above me (if I were to pass you, it would hit me).
    In these 15 seconds she traveled 112 km. And my question again. She was supposed to be at the beginning of the 15 seconds 90 km in the sea (a distance of 112 from me) - at a sharp angle from me, but here she is right almost above me in a settlement next to me located only 5 km. How can you explain that?
    Yes - continue to believe that you can see lights 100 meters long from a distance of 400 km. Just like Pizzo couldn't measure 0.000053 seconds even if he swore to me, so you can't see lights or the reflection of lights or whatever you want related to lights from a distance of 400 km.

    I will write at the beginning of the week about all the problems with the space station. Will be interesting. Come on…….

    For the knowledgeable reader and someone else
    I write again on the subject of ships, this time in 2 aspects:
    1. As you can see in the 2 videos, at the beginning of the shooting you see the horizon and your eyes do not recognize any ship. And as I said, suppose that if the ship left you in the shallow water (time of minus 10 minutes) it disappeared to you (as you see in the video at time 00:00) and then if you zoom in on the camera it is visible to you in full contrast (time of 00:01). I mean, it didn't disappear beyond the curvature, because you see it now.
    2. The second theme is the Fata Morgana or the Mirage above the water. Which frustrates far above water there is a lot of refraction of the light because of the atmosphere and humidity and what you see is a kind of fetta morgana. Optical illusions.

    There is a line called "mirror line" - it is a line that divides the ship into 2: you see part of the ship and its mirror down. Sometimes the ship….floats in the sky!
    See the video at minute 10:02 - see the ship with the takeoff line - you see it double and that it is above the water.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awCx5ob04ZY&t=543s
    It's all mirages because of the atmosphere above the water.
    A video that explains the line of sight. Note that a closer ship passes by at the time of 07:27 and you see the far ship with the takeoff line even though the nearer ship looks full.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWsuFLdgBs

    This has nothing to do with curvature.

    For miracles the first friend
    I have already answered your question and I will answer again - as in a flat world, as you go up, you move away from the earth and the line where the sky and the earth meet. And so you really see the horizon line lower. And again, it has nothing to do with curvature.

    Now I'll put the cynicism aside - did you see curvature when you were at an altitude of 20 km? At an altitude of 10-12 km you don't see curvature. I would appreciate it if you could really answer the question because it is very important. It is important for me to know if you see curvature in 20 km.

    Happy Shabbat Shalom to everyone

    giving

  172. Why don't you refer to the first video where you clearly see the ship sinking below the horizon?

  173. Foggy Gores: Socks - no shortage.

    So let's conclude: there is no such thing as a flat earth, there is none! This is a childish and ridiculous conspiracy whose entire purpose is to serve religious interests.

    And now I ask everyone to get off the deck and get into the cabins. The noise you make confuses the navigation system, and the ship will fall over the horizon and sink.

  174. Israel
    I once caught a sock trying to escape from the washing machine. It got stuck under the front door seal. Of course she denied the whole story.

  175. Well, what's the problem now with the Piezo experiment - it's not a book or a dental scale. What is he, a dentist?

    What he measured was the peak brightness of the light reflected from the mirror at a distance of 8.5 km from his lamp. A nice experiment that Sahbak also carried out with certain changes.

    And I couldn't really understand the problem with G either. But if we are talking about conspiracies - then what about the one who buried Paul in Sergeant Pepper? Not to mention the socks that disappear in the wash?

    ?
    ??
    ??! ??

  176. Hi Matan
    Regarding the observation at the space station (which you saw yourself) you raised 3 questions:

    " 1. How do I recognize a light the size of a football field 350 km from me? Nicosia in Cyprus at a distance of about 350 km from Tel Aviv. Suppose there is no curvature, no atmosphere and no mountains that hide. Do you really believe that you will see the light of a soccer stadium from Cyprus in Tel Aviv?

    2. The light was constant all the time. After all, the light is from the flickering of the panels. I would expect the light to flicker all the time, and with different intensity. After all, sometimes the panels are not exactly in my direction, so they sometimes have to light less, and sometimes light more. What I saw was a permanent strong spot that didn't match the glimmer of a panel.

    3. And the thing that bothers me the most - this light moves really slowly compared to 27,000 km/h. It passes over me every second 7.5 km. Right above me at the peak (angle about 85 degrees) it was at least half a minute - therefore right above me it moved a distance of 225 km. Half is 112.5 km. If I said I was 23 km from the Mediterranean Sea, then he started to be right above me (at the beginning of the 30 seconds), he was also about 90 km inside the Mediterranean Sea, which there is no way I would see it from my perspective. Just this point - how do you explain it? It really doesn't work out." End quote
    I will answer them for you but first, pay attention to the style of your questions, they all express a lack of knowledge, for example in question 2. You wrote "I would expect the light to twinkle all the time" who even told you that a satellite is supposed to twinkle? Where does your confidence come from? Are you so well versed in subjects like optics and satellites to know that? No, that's just how it seems to you, and the same question 1. You wrote "Do you really believe that you will see the light of a soccer stadium from Cyprus in Tel Aviv?" I don't, believe it or not, I just know that the laws of physics allow it, you, on the other hand, are not based on knowledge but it doesn't sound right to you. And the same with regard to question 3. Everything you said is just a personal impression, it seems to you that the station moved too slowly, if you did a calculation you would find out that everything works out perfectly... In science many times intuition deceives, look how for 2,000 years intuition (and faith in Aristotle) ​​misled everyone To think that heavier bodies fall faster than lighter bodies until an experiment came and disproved it to the eye every...

    With "proofs" like yours it is possible to "prove" anything, here for example are some "proofs" of this kind that there are no planes in the world that really fly, everything is a lie, as soon as you close the doors of the plane, a crane comes that takes the entire central part and drives it through underground roads, the windows In the plane they really agree that they show as if a view at a height of 10 km while the truth is that the plane never left the ground, they are working on all of us!!! :

    - So obviously it's a fake... Do you want to tell me that a plane that weighs hundreds of tons floats in the air as if it were cotton wool? Every child sees that this is one big fake

    - How is it possible that people fly at 900 km/h without feeling anything??? They tell us that we don't need to wear seat belts only during takeoff and landing, come on, if the plane was flying at such a crazy speed the people inside would be crushed in seconds, obviously the real reason is so that they don't notice the jolts of the loading and unloading from the giant trucks that carry them, that also explains why The "airline" companies show movies during the flight, all so that people will not have leisure to look too much at the "view from the window" and find out that it is actually a screen...

    -If planes really fly, how can there be occasional plane crashes? After all, the plane has huge wings, doesn't it? So why doesn't a plane that runs out of fuel or has an engine failure continue gliding like a glider so that the height and speed slowly decrease? Why??? Obviously! In the flights that crashed, people started to suspect that something was wrong, so they quickly blew them up so they wouldn't find out the secret...

    -I've been to an airport several times before a flight, I was never allowed to walk around the plane and look at it closely, how when you get close to it quickly you let everyone in and close the door, what do they have to hide? Etc. etc'

    You get the idea, questions like this (but why? but how? It doesn't make sense that...) may be interesting, but they are in no way proof of anything, at most they are something to keep finding out and asking experts on the subject, (unless you really know the subject and knows that the situation is not as it should have been (for example the twinkling of satellites) is something else, but even then you have to see the question in a general context, the amount and strength of the evidence in favor versus the amount and strength of the evidence against).
    I also don't understand all kinds of things about flight and airplanes (and also about space), so what? Does that mean they don't really fly and that everyone works for us?

    With you, any lack of understanding immediately turns into proof that everything is a lie and that it doesn't really exist, you can only prove it like that if you know the field and know that it shouldn't work, until then, 98% it's just your lack of understanding.

    Your claims are at best a lack of knowledge and/understanding of the subject and at worst outright errors/lies (I don't suspect you of not telling the truth, I'm talking about your sources of information) so for example the claim that a ship does not disappear under the horizon but only a small one and that using a large enough zoom is Be discovered again, it's just a complete mistake, there are endless videos that show it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nUFLLUahSI&t=22s , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVa2UmgdTM4 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrihjP5tTTM&t=29s , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWsuFLdgBs ),

    By the way, there is another simple proof of the sphericity of the earth, take a friend with you to some tower near the sea, stand on the highest floor and leave your friend to watch the sunset a few floors below you, you will see that when he reports to you that the sun has completely disappeared on the horizon, you will still see it, and exactly for the time given Calculate that you will see it by the diameter of the earth and your height above sea level, if you don't trust your friend (maybe while you left him for a second the masons recruited him...), you can do the same thing yourself with a drone, here is a nice video that demonstrates it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqAOsI2Ekf0

    I also have a little more specific answers but don't forget, even if I didn't have them it wouldn't change the principle, so like this:
    1. True, 350 km is a lot (the station is currently at an altitude of about 405 km, but it doesn't matter) but you forget that when you look at great distances on the surface of the earth, the thick atmosphere absorbs and scatters a lot of the light on the way, therefore something that is beyond 20- 30 km will look dark and hazy, on the other hand when you look at the sky there is much less air between us and the observed object, so it is true that the shape of the station cannot be seen with the eye from this distance, but there is no reason why it should not be possible to see it as a point of light.

    You said that you did see a point of light, but who said that it was indeed the International Space Station, a. There are countless sites in them
    The times of satellite transits over any place on Earth are shown, including exact times and their visible path in the sky from any place, (here is an example website that also includes Hebrew http://heavens-above.com/ ). Every evening after sunset and in the morning before sunrise, you can see dozens of satellites!, all of them fit the forecast given on this site and others, each such object has a name, catalog number, physical size (if known), exact orbit, and launch date.
    Many people around the world photographed "what is supposed to be the International Space Station" with a telescope, as you say, with great magnification, especially when it passes in front of the Sun or the Moon, then you can see its shape clearly and guess what you see in the photos, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepQoU4oek4

    Come on, tell me what else it could be, drone? balloon? After all, people who are tens and hundreds of kilometers away from you have also seen it (of course, the farther they were from it, the lower it appeared to them in the sky and a little less bright), like the strongest star, so you can't miss it, you can check for yourself on the above website and see that even in the distant Eilat the station was well visible and reached a height of 60° above the horizon, using such sites people manage to photograph the space station and other satellites passing by the sun, this requires knowledge of the station's trajectory with enormous precision, otherwise such videos would simply not have been received: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDIPZFqfGGo , and here is one taken from Israel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDckLwhb_7Q

    Moreover, there are quite a few amateurs around the world who follow the orbits of satellites for pleasure (with telescopes, radar, and they try to pick up their radio transmissions), you can't hide anything in space, they also manage to find the orbits of classified satellites such as the X37B space plane Or satellites of North Korea, etc. Not long ago, for example, SPACEX launched into space a top secret satellite named Zuma, you may have heard of it, not long after the launch, rumors began to circulate that something had happened to it and that it failed to reach orbit, and indeed those enthusiasts confirmed it. This is apart from the official tracking by NASA and other bodies of all objects in orbit around the Earth including missile parts and space junk, the full list includes tens of thousands of such objects that are tracked using dedicated telescopes and radars, which is all they do.

    2. Well, I don't know exactly, an interesting question, but I assume that the sunlight that hits the space station does not return straight to our eyes like from a mirror, but just simply illuminates it.

    3. It's very simple, the height of the space station's orbit is 405 km, do you know what height the space station reaches in the sky of South Sinai (in the passage of 14.02.18), 405 km south of here? Exactly 45 degrees from the horizon...
    In short, in conclusion, there is so much high-quality evidence for the Earth globes that have been restored so many times, I only touched on a part, (maybe I will post another comment later with more proofs) don't be one of those people who instead of relying on dozens of well-founded and high-quality evidences, they ignore them and instead bring you Shards of evidence that are worthless and sure that here they have presented you with the golden vision...

  177. To the reader in the know

    You proved in the second video what I'm talking about!

    Pay attention - in the second video look at 00:00 - do you see a ship? You do not see.

    Now let's say, in that video you are at the beach, and the ship is coming right out of the shallow water right in front of you. Let's say it's in the video 10:00- (minus 10 minutes).
    If you follow the ship with your eyes, you will see it move away, at first the body will disappear (let's say we are in the video at minus 5 minutes 05:00-), then only the mast will remain and then the whole ship disappears (let's say at minus one minute 01:00-). The ship has disappeared from your sight. You assume she disappeared into the curvature of the earth. This is what all the scientists of the past assumed.
    And here you get to 00:00 in the video - you don't see the ship! But if you put a camera and zoom in there is no - wonder and wonder it is back. As you can see in the video at 00:10.

    It's all a matter of perspective. Things move away and disappear not because of the curvature.

    Miracles, miracles, miracles
    I ask you one thing, you answer me another. as usual. What is the connection?
    How do you explain the fact that you see the ground behind you shaking, and the car not? If we say the camera was shaking, then both the car and the earth should have been shaking together!
    yes, how?
    giving

  178. Miracles - regarding Polaris, do not look at the text in English but in the frame on the right.
    In the third yellow title is written "Astronomy"
    In the 4th line is written "Distance"
    Listed 323-433 light years

  179. giving
    And to nevertheless contradict the lie of this film (the lie you spread, not the film itself):

    The camera is located on an arm that is attached to the car. Note (if you are able…) that you see a moving shadow on the car as the Earth moves.

    I covered my "debt". your turn And without lying again, okay? Photos where you suddenly see a ship over the horizon? Do you think we are all closed off? 🙂

  180. giving
    I will answer everything - after you admit that you are lying in the context of a ship at sea - in the enlarged pictures you see exactly what you see with the eye. The ship does disappear over the horizon.

    After that, explain to me why the horizon I see decreases when I fly high.

  181. I already posted 2 comments today that were not posted. Requests that they be published.
    Nissim, you are really hurting my confidence…..really…….
    But here it is for you - the ultimate proof that Tesla is not in space!
    Only 2 minutes. look
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrpGXfwyibI
    As the Tesla circled the Earth, the image of the Earth shook several times, but the car did not! If she is in space and the camera shakes, then the car will also move along with the earth. but no. Only the ground shook, and the car did not.
    Yes, please find a physical explanation please how the earth shakes behind but the car stays in place. Both should vibrate together.
    Unless…..what you see from behind is a projection. Sorry, but the car is still here with us on the ground.

    Continue to believe the lies that you are told that SpaceX launched the historic rocket into space.
    Continue to believe the lies you have been told for 500 years.
    And miracles - I am still waiting for an answer from you how Piso noticed with his eye 1 tooth out of 18,744 teeth that passed in one second, or in a time of 0.000053 seconds.
    giving

  182. Albanzo
    Unfortunately, I personally know people who believe this nonsense. To think that the earth is flat is just an indication of an artificial and harmless backwardness, but - it comes to the denial of warming, homeopathic treatment of children or the prevention of vaccinations - and this is already a dangerous evil.

    Matan is really a troll, you can't be that kind, but there are people reading here who are innocent, and as long as you can't delete Matan's type of comments, you shouldn't leave these comments at the top of the list 🙂

  183. Why are responses delayed here for a whole day, what's going on here?

    Matan search on YouTube:

    Ship Horizon

    And you will see many beautiful examples that contradict your words about ships.

  184. And you are right about the inclination angle of the earth - I meant to write 23.4 and not 24.4.
    But the result I wrote down was correct "66.6" and really 90 minus 23.4 equals 66.6…….

  185. Miracles

    I went to the doctor at night and he diagnosed that I have another syndrome - Freddy Krueger syndrome……that I appear in people's dreams and scare them about real facts and the truth scares them……

    Read everything I wrote carefully. Notice how you misunderstood/missed my reading comprehension:
    1. A ship disappears when you are on the beach at sea level and not in Zichron Yaakov that you are already at a high altitude!. Who said it first - Aristotle! And all the other scientists of the heliocentric world all the time used this model. So go to the beach - follow a yacht until it disappears from your sight after 5-6 km, look at it with a telescope and it will reappear.

    2. Curvature formula - have you flown a lot, are you an expert in satellites, and don't know what it is? On this basis, science determined that our world is round. The formula is square miles * 8 inches or square kilometers * 8 cm. (Sorry 7.8 cm because you said I wasn't accurate....). The farther you go, the greater the curvature and it is called drop.

    3. Polaris - what you wrote is not true. It has 2 distances as I wrote! Check the link
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris

    4. I wrote:
    "Pi is an important number in nature. Pi is the golden ratio." Note that I wrote in two "fi". This is the letter Φ. Take a read
    https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%99

    5. I clearly wrote a sun in Antarctica! And I wrote that the North Pole has 24 hours of sunshine, see the note I wrote in brackets:
    "(As in the months of June-August there is 24 hours of sun at the North Pole)"

    6. Specific weight of 1.2 kg per cubic meter - what is the connection to your vacuum experiment? The coin fell because…….its specific gravity is greater than 1.2 kg per cubic meter!
    Take a birthday balloon filled with helium and release it in the air - it will go up into the sky because its specific weight is small. So how does the force of gravity fail to pull it down? Because what plays a role is the specific gravity.

    7. Foucault pendulum - the fact that it moves all the time doesn't mean anything - it has a lot to do with only one thing - the elasticity of the cable which is constantly gaining energy and therefore it continues. The problem with the Poco pendulum is... that you have to give it a start! You can't stand her still and have her suddenly start moving. Why should you give her the first push? After all, the earth rotates and is supposed to rotate it, doesn't it? The first push gives it the energy to move and along with the elasticity of the cable.

    8. Black and white photo - yes, of course there is also gray. But how from a black and white picture did he determine that this white or this gray is 7000 times white or gray than the second point - this is the problem! And on this basis they determined our distance to the galaxy. Yes, continue to believe that from a black and white photograph (and with grayscale of course) you can determine brightness.

    9. Cavendish - what you wrote is not true. There was a university in the USA that did this and it was the closest - but the amplitude of the theta (the angle created by the displacement) was very large compared to Cavendish. And all the other experiments that are done with metal balls that have static electricity or electromagnetic radiation. Take 2 large wooden houses, hang them on a rope, the distance between them is only 10 cm, without winds, do you really think that the wooden houses will move towards each other?

    To the question you asked me regarding you going up - even in a flat world the earth moves away and as you go up the horizon line - the meeting of the sky with the earth - goes down.

    I asked you but really tell the truth because I have never met anyone who flew at such heights: when you flew 20 km in the sky, did you see the horizon straight (even if it is at a lower angle but straight) or did you notice any curvature?

    giving

  186. giving
    You did not answer my question.

    You wrote "that the ship disappears over the horizon because of the curvature of the earth, if you look through a telescope or a camera with magnification - you see the whole ship again! full"

    I lived for years in Zichron Ya'akov and I have dozens of photos of ships at sea, including at a very large zoom. Aren't you ashamed of giving? Are you just a troll?

    You wrote "a substance whose specific gravity is less than 1.2 kg per cubic meter (specific gravity of air at sea level) - rises up in the air (like a helium balloon), a substance whose specific weight is greater than 1.2 kg per cubic meter descends. ))"
    So …. Mmmmm.... How do bodies fall in a vacuum? When I was a student, we dropped a coin and a coin into an empty container - they fell down very nicely...

    I traveled in Norway and northern Canada, both in summer and winter. The sun revolves around you for 24 hours, sometimes above the horizon and sometimes below, depending on the season and time.

    The Cavendish experiment has since been performed thousands of times. Why are you lying Matan?

    In one of the churches of Bologna there is a Foucault pendulum. I looked at it for hours (it drove me crazy – a science experiment in a church??). I also saw a similar pendulum in a museum in Washington. Both move at a rate of one revolution every 24 hours.

    And by the way - the earth rotates around its axis in 23 hours and 56 minutes. 🙂

    Wow - you are really stupid. A black and white photo board does not display a black and white photo! It displays shades of gray, ranging from black to white. Never seen a black and white photo? If you say no - I will know you are a liar. If you say yes - I will know that you are stupid. what is your answer

    Now for your awkward math.
    Pi is not the golden ratio and has nothing to do with the golden ratio.
    Earth's average speed is 65,526.5 miles per hour
    The Earth is tilted on its axis 23.44 degrees
    The curvature formula? what is it Anyway?
    The distance to Polaris is fixed - we don't know this distance (for reasons you won't understand without a degree). You just took two numbers and made a stupid calculation.
    Dan Brown wrote fictional books - good thing you don't believe there are hobbits (maybe you do).

    Matan - please - read a little about the Dunning-Kruger complex and go get help!!!

    Are you saying I'm a liar? I will understand... 🙂

  187. for everyone

    I only research facts or historical facts and do not go into anecdotes and conspiracies at all. Nothing scientific from what we are told adds up. point.
    Before I start, just to stimulate everyone's brains, let me list you 2 conspiracies based on real facts (then we'll put that aside and talk only about facts):
    1. Werner von Braun, the father of rockets, the Nazi who defected to America, wrote the scientific book "The Mars Project" in 1952. And what was the name of the leader of the Martian government - Elon. It is a name from 1952. This name is also the name of SpaceX entrepreneur Elon Musk who is leading the journey to the moon. Now - this is a fact. The conspiracy says that Elon Musk is actually a puppet on strings that was designed already 16 years before SpaceX was born.
    2. Kepler who came up with the famous 3 laws based his work on the work of Tycho Brahe who suddenly fell ill and died in 1601. The cause was a bladder complication. About 400 years later, in 1991 and 1996, they examined his mustache that remained in the grave, and discovered that the man died of mercury poisoning. That is, they found out after 400 years that someone poisoned him. So far facts.
    For those who didn't know, Tycho Brahe believed in the geocentric world with the earth at the center. The conspiracy says that the person who profited the most from his death is……Kepler, because Kepler took his work and changed it 180 degrees to the heliocentric world.
    So much conspiracies.

    Now let's talk about data and facts that don't add up (I have another 50 of them):
    1. On January 31, 2018 (two weeks ago) there was a partial lunar eclipse. The strange thing is that the shadow on the moon was on the top of the moon (!) and not on the bottom. After all, we learned in science that during a lunar eclipse parts of the earth cast a shadow on the moon in the lower part. So how does reality show that the top is shaded? It doesn't work out physically. There can't be a situation where the earth casts a shadow and it's at the top. Attached photos:
    https://www.facebook.com/ronhagberg/posts/10155891202491166
    Furthermore, we learned that Aristotle said thousands of years ago that how do you know that the world is round - because you see a rounded shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
    Where is the problem? It became clear to me today that body A casts a shadow on body B - the shadow takes the shape of body B regardless of the shape of body A! That is, if a straight stick casts a shadow on a ball - the shadow on the ball is rounded. And you see this rounded shadow, is the stick rounded? Absolutely not, he's honest. What do you want to say - that what Aristotle taught us, and what we all know is proof that the earth is round - is simply not true.
    2. Who does not know that how do you know that the world is round - because when a ship moves away from us it starts to disappear due to the curvature of the earth, first the hull of the ship disappears and finally the mast. This is what we have learned all our lives. Definitive proof of a round world.
    Where is the problem?
    The ship disappears beyond the horizon because of the curvature of the earth, if you look through a telescope or a camera with magnification - you see the whole ship again! full! After all, we learned that she disappears over the horizon. So how do you see the ship? Then in the telescope you see that the ship disappears again over the horizon. You zoom in bigger and you see the ship again! Where is the curvature?
    Then you realize that the whole thing is perspective - things disappear because they move away from the limit of your vision and not because of curvature. And if you put an eyepiece with magnification - you will see everything again.

    3. Google Earth - use the software to go to the southern part of the earth (mark a grid of coordinates in the software) and when you get to the top you will see something strange - triangular strips come out of the southern top in an artificial way. You ask yourself why? After all, there are at least hundreds of satellites that pass over Antarctica from north to south. Why didn't they photograph this? Why is it artificial?
    (In a flat world there is no South Pole, Antarctica is around the entire disc)
    4. In the months of December-February every year we are told that there is 24 hours of sun in Antarctica (as in the months of June-August there is 24 hours of sun in the North Pole). And when you come to investigate the subject, you look at time lapse cameras (one frame represents a large time constant) which are located in the bases in Antarctica, for example here at Camp Davis. When you look at the videos you notice that the shadow rotates for 20 hours and then the image stops, and from 00:00 to 04:00 there is no movement of the shadow but everything is fixed.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3XfKL0W844
    You will understand - this point is critical because it is black and white - in a round world there are 24 hours of sunshine at the South Pole point. If 4 hours are missing, as in this case, there is a problem with the model.
    (There is another video that supposedly shows 24 hours of sun, but you can see that they put layers of titles in it, and you still don't really see the sun 24 hours).

    Here are other things related to scientific things that just don't add up:
    1. It all started with Artosthenes who in the 3rd century BC did his famous experiment and measured the circumference of the Earth. Because the sun's rays are parallel lines, on a special day he measured the angle between 2 places in Aswan and Alexandria and thus measured the circumference of the earth with a deviation of only 15%. Where is the problem? There is a paradox here. How did he assume that the sun's rays are parallel? We "know" that the sun's rays are parallel because the sun is simply huge with a diameter of 1.4 million km compared to only about 12.8 thousand of the country. But in the world of concepts at that time, how could he even conclude that it is parallel? It was not at all in his system of perception and understanding (it's like you explain to someone from the 15th century about an iPhone). And even that 300 years before him, Pythagoras and Plato, who concluded that the world might be a sphere, they also did not understand the enormous size of the sun and the corresponding sun rays. So how did Artosthenes assume that the sun's rays are parallel? Without this assumption, his whole test is irrelevant.

    2. Newton published his book in 1684 in which he presented the world of gravitation and the equation F= G*m1*m2 / r^2. Where is the problem? He did not know the cosmological constant G and he never measured the force of gravity. In fact, until 1874 when Cavendish's experiment was published (after 76 years that the experiment was actually done), for about 200 years nobody knew how to measure anything because there was no G. Nobody also measured the force between us and between the stars and nobody measured force between 2 objects in Israel. It was all speculation without proof. Even today, this power cannot be measured by any instrument. The scientists say it exists, no one can prove it.
    ((The only known thing that could be physically measured is the acceleration g to the Earth of 9.8 meters per second. Newton of course attributed this to gravity, but there is a main variable why things are pulled to the ground or rise up - only because of the density of matter (!) and it has nothing to do with gravity - A substance whose specific gravity is less than 1.2 kg per cubic meter (specific gravity of air at sea level) - rises up in the air (like a helium balloon), a substance whose specific weight is greater than 1.2 kg per cubic meter descends.) )

    3. The Cavendish experiment in 1798 to find the mass of the Earth and the cosmological constant G - I described to you in the previous comments how the experiment was conducted, and I will tell you what the problems are:
    A. Cavendish did the experiment alone. No one else was present at the experiment, no one knew he was doing the experiment, no official scientific office was present, nothing. If I came to you with my experiment and data and no official or other person was present - would you accept my data?
    B. Cavendish watched the experiment with the telescope from hundreds of meters away because he didn't want the pull of his body to affect the results. And what about the rods, and what about the wooden infrastructure that held the experiment, it had no effect? A small enough effect that all measurements will be irrelevant. Reminds you of the three-body problem (description of the mutual movement of three bodies under the influence of gravity) which has no analytical solution but only in special cases.
    third. He did not present his experiment in a formal or scientific manner with in-depth explanations. Only 76 years after his experiment, their lists were found and published in 1874.
    d. During the last 150 years many have tried to carry out the Cavendish experiment without success. Some universities did try to do this, but the angle θ Δ that tested the angle of moving the rod was very large compared to the original experiment. And the bigger the angle, the less accurate it is.
    God. There has never been an experiment of 2 large bodies close together made of wood or plastic (without static electricity or electromagnetism) that showed that there is a displacement between them or that a force was measured between them.

    4. The measurement of the speed of light by Pizou in 1849 - I have already written about it at length - there is no way that Pizou recognized with his eye on the telescope that 1 tooth in 18,744 passed per second, or that 0.000053 seconds passed. There's no way he measured it. nothing. No human eye can detect it. It is of great importance that the real initial measurement not by means of stars or parallax makes no sense to identify. And this is of greater importance because Einstein based the theory of relativity on the basis of the measurements of light that were known to him in 1900.

    5. Pico's Pendulum 1851 - According to science, Pico's pendulum moves in a certain way because of the effect of the Earth's rotation. Here are the problems:

    and. If it moves due to the rotation of the earth, why was it necessary to give it an initial push? Why couldn't it be put in a stationary position and then it would start moving due to the rotation of the earth?
    G. There was no consistency to the movement - sometimes slow, sometimes fast, sometimes clockwise, sometimes counterclockwise.
    H. And the most important thing - the pendulum was suspended by a string that had tension. Maybe the tension of the thread affected the movement? The more elastic the thread, the wider, faster and larger the movement. It turns out that Pico didn't talk about it at all. (It is important to compare this to Cavendish who compared "gravitation" to the twisting of the rod with the small balls, and in fact the movement of the rod (θ Δ) moves and repeats moves and repeats. So how did Pico and no one else consider the tension of the rope?)

    6. Measurement of distances to the stars by Hubble 1923 - Hubble measured the distances to the stars based on the ratio between apparent brightness and absolute brightness. The problem is that he did it using a black and white photographic board. How did he know how to recognize differences in brightness from a black and white board, how? mentions that the cupid he chose was 7,000 times the absolute luminosity of our sun.

    7. There is no measurement with a measuring device made on the earth that we move 1,600 km/h in a circular motion.
    8. There is no measurement with a measuring device made on the earth that we move 107,000 km/h around the sun.
    9. There is no measurement with a measuring device made on earth that we move 500,000 km/h with the sun around the Milky Way.
    10. There is no measurement in a measuring device that measured the gravitation between us and the sun, between us and the moon.
    11. There is no measurement in a measuring device that measured the gravitation between 2 bodies that are in the world.
    12. There is no measurement in a measuring device that measured the distance between the earth and our moon (only 380 thousand km) (and those who say they measured with a laser is simply not true because even the most sophisticated laser will disperse its beam very early).

    And for dessert:
    13. Pi is an important number in nature. Pi is the golden ratio. But there is another important number in the nature of the heliocentric and it is...666. Go out and learn:
    A. The speed of the earth around the sun is…..66,600 miles per hour.
    B. The Earth is tilted on its side 24.4 degrees. If you subtract that from a 90 degree right angle you get…..66.6 degrees.
    third. The curvature formula is for every 1 mile drop of…. 0.666 feet
    d. The distance of the North Star Polaris from us is between 333 and 434 light years (once closest and once furthest) or 1,938,000,000,000,000 to 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles. The difference between the far point and the near point….. 666,000,000,000,000. (True - I didn't believe it either and checked the numbers myself).
    God. NASA's first plane 15-X is the first plane to reach the edge of space in the early 60s. There were only 3 such planes. What was their serial number?
    66670
    66671
    66672……..
    and. And the cosmological constant G is only 6.67 * 10^-11 - it was not pleasant for them then a constant close to 6.66……..
    Isn't it strange that the number 666 appears in the heliocentric world of the imperial measurement system?

    And to the questions how can thousands of people know this secret? The answer is one - there is a movement of eight million people, many of the biggest leaders in the world are in it, and they really rule the world. Until a year ago, I only knew this movement from Dan Brown's films, but it turns out that this movement has existed for 500 years, it has many symbols, all the scientists of the heliocentric model were members of it (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Hubble and many more), it was responsible for the revolution The French and she founded Zionism (!) in the 19th century (I'm still shocked by this).
    I know it's crazy, but go to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem and see the pyramid and all their other symbols there.
    Of course I don't need to point out that all the astronauts are members of it, they have rings of this fraternity, and they took pictures with the symbols of this fraternity.

    The facts do not add up.

    giving

  188. giving
    Please - come explain something to me that I understand.

    When I fly at a low altitude - I see the horizon line "at my height" that is - at an angle of 0.
    When I fly at 30 feet, the horizon drops 3 degrees. It happens everywhere I fly, and in every direction I look.
    When I fly at 50 feet, the horizon drops to 5 degrees (roughly).

    How can it be?

  189. For so-and-so 321

    I went to a dark hill where I live 250 meters above sea level - from there I can see the buildings of Tel Aviv. 23 km from me is the sea behind the buildings. On nice days I also see the sea.

    What did I see - I saw a steady light passing over me for 6 minutes. Approximately from a height of 30 degrees above the horizon above the sea to 30 degrees above the horizon on the other side.

    A very beautiful play.

    but,

    The station hovers above me at an altitude of 350 km. The panels are 100 meters by 50 meters (the size of a football field). The speed of the space station is 27,000 km/h or 7.5 km per second. She flew in my space for 6 minutes, which is 360 seconds, during which time she traveled 2,700 km above me.

    The data does not line up for several reasons:
    1. How do I recognize a light the size of a football field 350 km from me? Nicosia in Cyprus at a distance of about 350 km from Tel Aviv. Suppose there is no curvature, no atmosphere and no mountains that hide. Do you really believe that you will see the light of a soccer stadium from Cyprus in Tel Aviv?

    2. The light was constant all the time. After all, the light is from the flickering of the panels. I would expect the light to flicker all the time, and with different intensity. After all, sometimes the panels are not exactly in my direction, so they sometimes have to light less, and sometimes light more. What I saw was a permanent strong spot that didn't match the glimmer of a panel.

    3. And the thing that bothers me the most - this light moves really slowly compared to 27,000 km/h. It passes over me every second 7.5 km. Right above me at the peak (angle about 85 degrees) it was at least half a minute - therefore right above me it moved a distance of 225 km. Half is 112.5 km. If I said I was 23 km from the Mediterranean Sea, then he started to be right above me (at the beginning of the 30 seconds), he was also about 90 km inside the Mediterranean Sea, which there is no way I would see it from my perspective. Just this point - how do you explain it? It really doesn't add up.

    It's just the tip of the iceberg. I will write later about the other things.

    Miracles - if you are still with us - have you, flying at an altitude of 20 km, already recognized the curvature of the earth?

    giving

  190. For Matan and everyone else, I spoke with NASA and they arranged for us a perfect passage of the International Space Station? Directly above us tomorrow - Wednesday 14.01.18 it will look like a much stronger star in the sky than any other star in the sky, and it will move slowly from horizon to horizon for about 10 minutes, you can see it easily with the eye, you don't need binoculars or anything. It will be possible to see it from anywhere in the country, (from the north and the south the data are different, but just a little, maybe a minute or two).

    Here are the details: The space station will rise at 17:55:00 (I rounded the seconds) on the horizon in the northwest direction - azimuth 315°
    5 minutes later at 18:00:17 the station will be right above us, a few degrees from the very center of the sky, so it will also shine very brightly at magnitude 3.9- (the light is not self but is simply illuminated by the sun)

    And from there in a straight line it will descend to the opposite horizon while passing through the Orion group - very close to Beetlejuice - by the way the space station has been manned continuously for 17 years and now 6 astronauts stay there.

    Successfully.

  191. Dear Matan, (regarding your first two responses) did you notice that you are contradicting yourself? You are trying to bring evidence that there are no satellites from the fact that in the photo of the Tesla there are no twinkles of satellites and no stars, but everything is black, wait, but if that is the case then the Tesla launch is also a fake, so it is impossible to prove anything from it. And by the way, tens of thousands of people saw with their eyes the launch of the Falcon Hoi, and in general, what exactly do you think SpaceX and all the other rocket and satellite companies are doing??? Sitting cross-legged and trying to work on people as if they were launching satellites? Why would they even do that? Who pays them to sit and do nothing (except work for all of us, yes?)…

  192. J. Green (Brian's brother)?

    Your answer is instructive. Now read it again but this time think that it comes as an answer to those who raise questions and doubts about Judaism. what are you saying?

  193. Hi Matan, a little advice: you know when someone asks you a very difficult riddle, you think and think and it seems to you that there is no way in the world to solve it

    (An example of such a puzzle: let's say you -Matan- and your friend are brought into a room and told something like this, notice, in the next room there are 100 small cardboard boxes numbered from 1 to 100, inside each box there is a piece of paper with some number from 1 to 100 but pieces The paper is scattered randomly in the boxes without matching the number on the box to the number on the piece of paper, now they tell you, you must go into the next room, where the boxes are, do something there (we will explain what it is) and leave, and only then, after you leave the building, will a lottery be held for a number from 1 to 100 and your friend will have to enter the room and find the piece of paper with the drawn number while opening no more than 50 boxes, you can agree with him before the draw what you want and yes you can stay as long as you like in the room but all you are allowed to do there is open boxes and see what the number is on the piece of paper inside, as well as switching between 2 pieces of paper (only 2 and without writing or marking anything, it sounds like there is and cannot be a solution, after all, what does it matter what I will do if only after I leave it will be decided which number my friend will have to find! !!)

    But your friend says that there is also an answer to the riddle, in such a situation there is a kind of urge to walk with your head against the wall and believe that there is no answer to the riddle, it seems so impossible!
    Here you have to take a step back and think logically, it's true that I can't think of any solution and it seems intractable, but there is someone here (reliable, whom I trust) who tells me that there are, there are, there are surprises in life and I don't know everything.

    And one more thing, do you have any idea how many people work in and around the space industry? Astronomers, astronauts, technicians, engineers who build satellites, and more and more, hundreds of thousands of people around the world if not more, talented, expert, serious people, do you think they don't know your questions? Do you really think the astronomers etc are complete idiots who don't think about the questions you raised? Or are they threatening everyone to keep quiet? It's not serious.

    Do you have any idea what kind of sensation it would be if scientists discovered that the earth is flat/there are no satellites/another invention, those who went against the "link of silence" would be honored and published worldwide!

    Have you ever thought who could have an interest in working on all of us for hundreds of years???

    In short, I really recommend that you ask and consult the experts on the subject and not with some self-proclaimed experts who make delusional claims. Your questions are good, but if you bothered to ask people who have studied the field seriously and deal with it every day, you would have received detailed and satisfactory answers (or alternatively they would have been convinced...), instead you chose to think, oh, I can't find an answer to my questions, so that's it, I'm right , there are no satellites and everything is a lie.

  194. to the science website
    I sent 2 comments at noon and you are slandering me. that's not nice.
    This is a scientific site and we talk here about science and the problems in science
    I am asking if you can upload my last 2 messages to Nisim
    Also, I have more things to write
    Please let me respond
    Thanks
    giving

  195. Raphael
    Is it all fake? Or just what you (not necessarily you personally..) don't want to believe? Do you also think the world is flat? 🙂

  196. Nissim - a small question - flying at an altitude of 20 km, did you see the curvature of the earth? Or at such a height you still don't see curvature? (On a 10-12 km flight you can't see from the cockpit either (my friend is a pilot).

  197. Hello miracles
    This is the short version. In the evening I will expand and comment on your comments.
    A year less than 4 days ago, Kyrie Irving, a basketball player from the NBA, said "we are being worked on, the world is flat". I didn't stop laughing and giggling. I'm a fan of astronomy and physics and I just laughed like probably 99.9% of the people who heard his comment did.
    But, as strange as it seemed to me, I began to research the subject. I investigate the issue not from the side of "is the world flat" but from the other side "is the world really round".
    And believe me, after about 500 hours of investigation in old books, old experiments, the history of science, and analyzing live space events that happen, I am confident that we live in a flat world and not in globes.
    Yes, laugh, snicker, cancel. I'm used to it but still continue with my truth.
    I started researching the history of heliocentric science (the sun in the center) between the years 1500 (Cuprincus) and 1923 (Hubble) because then there were no computers, lasers, GPS, radar (it was only in the beginning), etc.

    And my eyes darkened! All but all of the science related to the heliocentric model was just speculation. No proof. I gave you a taste of Piezo from 1849, and you talked about radar and pulses, but what to do in 1849 there were no radars and Piezo relied on his eye that was in the telescope and he noticed 1 tooth that moved (out of 18,744 teeth that moved in one second) and so on He calculated the speed of light. Not by radar. but by a human eye in 1849. Then after you calculate that 0.000053 seconds have passed you realize that there is a problem with his experiment. There's no way he measured it.
    Then you find that Newton determined in 1684 the immortal equation of gravitation (f=G*m1*m2/r^2), but the universal constant G was "found" only in 1874 after 200 years!!! And no one has been able to measure the force F. So how can you establish a theory whose central variable is not found at all?
    And then you look at Cavendish's experiment that found the cosmological constant G and it turns out that he did the experiment all by himself with no one else present, no other scientist present and no academia present. Then 80 years after that they found his lists and "voila", the G they were looking for 200 years was found.

    Nothing works out.

    I have many more things to write, I will write them in the evening.
    giving

  198. giving
    If you are the one who investigates the truth - then the scientists who think differently than you are liars? Let's go over your "facts" and see.

    Yes - I truly believe that a car does float in space. Hundreds and thousands of people were involved in this project. Are all these lies that installed the Tesla in the missile? Did they get paid? Were they threatened? Isn't it easier and cheaper to just put a car there? Now - the missile was launched and reached space, and it did not explode. There are enough witnesses to this.
    So how can the car not be in space? where is he? Elon Musk is really a nice man and a genius, but he is not a magician 🙂
    Is the car on its way to Mars? I have no reason to think otherwise. Spaceships arrived there 45 years ago. So - why not now?

    NASA does not, in any way, own SpaceX. NASA is a client of SpaceX, and in this case, it lent equipment and personnel for the benefit of the project.
    If you didn't understand - NASA pays SpaceX.

    The temperature in space varies widely, between 300 degrees and minus 250 degrees (depending on exposure to the sun). For metal parts of the vehicle it does not matter, and the paint is also resistant to high heat. Regarding the tires - high heat resistant rubber too: I saw wheels that were so hot they were red! And nothing happened to Gumi. Tire rubber is produced at high temperatures, and I see no reason to be concerned in the case of our Tesla.
    In practice - the heat is not high either, astronauts walk around in space in suits without any problem.

    I have flown a lot in my life, even at altitudes of 20 km. Nothing freezes on a plane - where did you come up with this nonsense? What does freeze is water that liquefies from the plane (the so-called blue ice). Airplanes have air conditioning systems that easily withstand extreme conditions - flying at a low altitude of 1200 km/h, up to flying at an altitude of 20 km - without any effort. Maybe it's not clear to you - but no one claims that Musk is driving all the way to Mars...

    The site you referred to is one of the dumbest things I've seen in my life 🙂 and whoever reads this site is even dumber. To say that Judy Resnik is alive? Aren't they ashamed!?!?!?!? What rubbish are you reading?

    Van Allen belts do not damage hardened components. The Tesla is not hardened, but there is no intention that its radio will work on Mars. The astronauts' exposure to this radiation was short - they received radiation in the amount of one rad (much less than one CT scan), when an annual exposure of 5 rads per year is allowed (the American standard).

    True - the astronauts said they felt nothing. The danger is not immediate. Even in CT you don't feel anything.

    Regarding satellite photography - let's do the math. The satellite moves 7.5 km per second, right (I'm glad you have a pocket calculator!) Let's assume an altitude of 300 km. That is a ratio of 1 to 40. Let's take a photo plane. Flying at an altitude of 20 km, at a speed of 0.5 km per second - that is also a ratio of 1 to 40. The ratio is important because what is interesting is the angle at which an object moves on the ground during photography. - In satellite and plane photography the object moves at the same angle.
    Now, 1 in 40 gives an angle of about a degree and a half (I'll teach you a pilot's trick: a meter-sized object 60 meters away covers an angle of one degree).
    That is, the camera has to turn backwards at a speed of one and a half degrees per second to compensate for the speed. Does that seem like a lot to you?
    Why did I even mention photo planes? Because - in the past I took a lot of photos at an altitude of 20 km, at a speed of half a km per second - and most amazingly: our camera was a camera designed for a satellite!!! 🙂

    You said a meter-sized pixel. Let's assume this is true, and let's assume a 4000 pixel image. This means a picture of 4 km side. 2 pictures per second - and we're done. In the photographic planes, we maintained an overlap of 56% between images, therefore we took a larger number of images per second. So we closed this matter as well.

    The satellite consumes relatively little electricity (especially photography satellites. Communication satellites consume more, and that too, approximately up to 100 watts in total). His panels are much more efficient than the panels on your house, they receive much stronger radiation (there is no air in the space... is this also new to you?) - and they are aimed precisely at the sun!!!

    I didn't understand what you said about yes plates. Communication by returning from the ionosphere is carried out at low frequencies of between 3 and 30 MHz, therefore large antennas are needed. Israel also had such antennas (some of them were above the Ramon Crater).

    Again you confuse your logic with reality... what will happen to you, Matan?? Why do you think 45-60 degrees? As explained to you, Yes's satellite is above the equator. The frequency of Yes is around 10 GHz, a frequency where there is no return from the ionosphere, but on the other hand - the antenna is much smaller. I did a quick calculation - it turned out that Yes's antenna should be 8-9 degrees (assuming that their satellite is at the same latitude as Israel. Otherwise the angle will be a little bigger).

    Yes, Matan - there is a physical explanation for the return of sky waves from the ionosphere. If you had a physical education I would be able to explain to you exactly.
    There is something interesting about this - because it is a repeat, so there are dead areas in the reception. That is, you perceive within a certain range, move away and do not perceive, then move further away and perceive again. And sometimes there is also a return from the ground - then again there is a dead zone followed by a reception zone. Interesting, right?

    Yes - I see satellites in my eyes. To be precise - I see reflections of the sun from satellites. I have an application that tells me when satellites pass over me, and I see them a lot, when there are no clouds of course.
    The human eye perceives a single photon. He sees a candle from a distance of 20 km. The flash from Iridium satellites for example, is much stronger than that. Sometimes - these satellites spoil photographs that astronomers take through telescopes.

    And by the way, here's a nice photo for you - https://qz.com/1058842/solar-eclipse-2017-photo-the-iss-just-pulled-off-the-photobomb-of-a-lifetime/

    A friend of mine took similar shots, so you can be sure it's not a fake.

    My heliocentric world? What do I have to do with it?

    You can't write a single "fake" line about the space station. You can lie for 5 pages. What do you get out of it?

    GPS is picked up in the middle of the sea, thousands of kilometers away from any cellular antenna, so that's enough. GPS is not received in the building, although there is cellular reception. Facts you call it 🙂 🙂

    Giving - don't relate your lack of understanding of science to reality. You suffer from a syndrome called Dunning-Kruger.

    Piso's experiment is simple. He knew roughly what the speed of light was, from Ol Roima's calculations. In addition, he changed the speed of the device to a large extent. I will tell you a story that can clarify:
    The Phantom's radar uses the speed of light to calculate range to a target. Send a short pulse and then the radar starts measuring time. I think even you can figure it out. Let's say my radar transmits a pulse every thousandth of a second. This means that the range that I can see a target is the speed of light divided by 1000, then divided by 2. That is - 150 km. Now - suppose there is a large plane within 200 km. The radar will pick up the echo after 1.333 milliseconds. But - the radar will think that it is a leveled echo later, and therefore will think that it has traveled only 1/3 of a millisecond. Then - the radar will show me a target 50 km away.
    Why did I tell that? Because there is a way to overcome the problem: change the time between the pulses a little, then you can connect the outgoing pulse to the returning pulse. And that's what Piso did!!!

    Now - what does relativity have to do with this?

    Matan - what are you trying to say? No stories, and no lies - what do you want to say?

  199. Hello miracles
    I'm not into conspiracies. In the last year I have been busy researching the truth about the heliocentric model.
    All I am writing to you are facts. Not guesses or whims, as all scientists until 1950 guessed.
    Regarding the things you wrote down, there is a reference at the end.

    Is my logic wrong? From the experience you've listed that you have, do you really, really believe that right now a car is orbiting the Earth and then on its way to Mars?
    I'll tell you why I dwell on the ridiculous car. People think that SpaceX is Elon Musk's private company, but the truth is that NASA also owns SpaceX! It is a company owned by NASA. It brings her billions of dollars every year - therefore this operation is not a whim of a successful entrepreneur, but an initiative and cooperation of NASA.

    For his part, watching the video of the car, it's hard to believe it's real. It looks so fake. And I mentioned this before that Musk also said at the press conference "It's real because it looks so fake". And he also said at the press conference that "they didn't make any changes to the material in the car, and they didn't do experiments to check if the material would meet the conditions of space."
    Now, let me ask you questions and you answer me (because my writing makes no sense):
    And if there is a figure that I did not specify - please indicate it:
    1. The temperature in space around the earth is 200-250 degrees Celsius. How, really really how, can the car, which Musk says has not been modified in materials, withstand this temperature? Do you really believe that? Put your private car in a large oven of 200-250 degrees - how does the upholstery not burn? How does the tin not bend? (The main thing is that you see the reflection of the Earth through the wax of the doors…….) We will add the fact that if you are not on the side of the sun, then the temperature is much, much below 0 in the area of ​​minus 273 Celsius. But let's be honest and say only minus 100. So how come the car doesn't freeze either??? (Even though it moves fast? FYI, planes that fly at an altitude of 10-12 km as soon as the temperature outside reaches less than minus 60-70 then some of the systems in the plane start to freeze, so even if they are moving fast still at a low temperature things start to freeze)

    (diagram showing the temperature by altitude)
    https://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/15/30-how-do-satellites-survive-4000f-degree-heat-in-space/

    2. Van Halen belt - the car is supposed to continue into deep space. How can it pass the Van Halen belt that is around the earth at a distance of 700 km to 10,000 km? The entire belt is electromagnetic radiation that can ionize any electronic circuit.
    Seriously, do you really believe Musk's car can get through that belt? Look at NASA's flagship project "The Orion" how much thought and resources they invest to overcome this radiation.
    It's just ridiculous. And I'm not the logical one……
    (Anecdote - so how in 1969 did the Apollo spacecraft pass the Van Allen Belt? They had no shielding at all like NASA plans today. Nothing. They didn't think about it at all. Furthermore, who asked the astronauts a few years later "How did they pass the The belt?" They responded that they didn't feel anything and maybe it wasn't a problem).

    Additional questions about satellites:
    3. A photography satellite is at a low altitude of 200-300 km and moves at a speed of 27,000 km/h or 7,500 meters per second!!! Again - every second it moves 7,500 meters. Now, how on earth can he photograph anything? If he puts a camera on any point - after a second the point has moved away a little less than 7.5 km! (I wrote a little less because the radius of the satellite is 200-300 km greater than the radius of the earth).
    We have been told all our lives about satellite photos, and that a satellite can photograph the ground to an accuracy of 1 meter. Let's do the math:
    If he is taking a picture of the Gillot intersection, after 1 second he will already be at the Peace Interchange, after another 1 second he will be in the center of Bat Yam, and after another 1 second he will be at Ikea Rishon, and after another 1 second he will be at A.T. Yavne. What do you want to say? In only 4 seconds, he traveled the distance from Gilit Junction to Yavne. How can he shoot something so fast?
    4. Let's add to this the fact that in order to see a distance of 200-300 km you need such long lenses. How does all this fit into a satellite of only a few meters? And again, we are told that satellites are photographing the houses and streets (I am not talking about a high photograph that occupies a key of a kilometer).
    (There is a Vexcel company and in collaboration with Microsoft it puts special cameras on light aircraft and takes strip pictures, and Microsoft's software turns this into a... view from above of streets and houses. Just like... Google Earth. So how do you say that Google Earth takes pictures of all the streets from a satellite And the houses from above, it doesn't work out at a speed of 7,500 meters per second, but with a plane at a low altitude these photos make sense
    http://www.vexcel-imaging.com/

    5. The satellite consumes a lot of electricity, and therefore has solar panels that charge the battery. I have solar panels on the roof of the house. My solar panels cover a 100 square meter roof. I believe an average satellite has 10 square meters of panels.
    Several characteristics for the panels:
    A. It takes a lot of meterage to produce some electricity.
    B. The angle is very, very important - if the sun is slightly at an angle, the efficiency drops dramatically.
    third. A temperature of 20-25 degrees is optimal efficiency. Precisely at 40 degrees, the efficiency drops by dozens of percent!
    Now, in light of the above, I don't understand how the few panels that are on the satellite, not at an angle, at a temperature of 200-250 degrees, or minus the fact that the panel freezes, can provide electricity for 5-10 years to all the satellite systems?
    And what about the nanosatellites? A week ago, Japan launched a nano-satellite into space with a mass of 3 kg and a size of 37 cm. Where does it have room for the battery? Where is there a place for the panels to charge? And most importantly - what photographic lens can you put in such a small satellite? And the illogical one…….

    These are my main difficulties,

    Below are answers to your 4 comments:
    1. Yas plate -
    Have you heard of White Alice Communications System?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Alice_Communications_System
    In the 50s, the American Air Force (the same Air Force that controls GPS) did experiments in Alaska about the length of wave reception. After deploying large "satellite" dishes (yes, like the large dishes in the Halla Valley) it sent radio waves to an angle in the sky, and the waves hit the sky/ The sky/atmosphere and the rest bounce back to another dish. This is how they were able to transmit radio signals to distances of hundreds of kilometers. This required them to precisely aim the dish. If you move the dish by a few degrees, the angle of the bounce from the sky will not reach the distant dish and there will be no reception .
    Today this method is called tropospheric zeroing:
    https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%99_%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%99
    Wait, what does this remind us of? Wait, what do you see in the pictures? You see... plates similar to Yes plates! In the 50s? Does not make sense.
    It turns out that the American military realized that pointing plates in a certain direction in the sky causes communication to be transmitted 500 km.
    Pay attention to another special thing - I always did not understand the logic of Yes plates whose angle is only 10 degrees. It does not make sense. After all, they should face the sky at an angle of at least 45-60 degrees. Then they explain to us that the plates are aimed at an angle to a communication satellite above the equator, so the angle is very sharp 10 degrees. Please look at the pictures of "tropospheric seeding" and the operation in Alaska in the 50s. All the plates have a very sharp angle of about 10 degrees.
    One last thing - there is no logical explanation in your heliocentric world why the signals bounce back. nothing. Can you explain to me why?
    2. a. Do you really see satellites with your eyes?
    Let's do a little math - let's assume a utopian world without mountains and valleys, without curvature and without an atmosphere. You are in Tel Aviv and I am in Eilat 300 km from you. You have darkness and I have light. I hold and move a 10 meter long solar panel (I wish you a larger size than the satellite panels....). The sun hits and shimmers on my panel.
    You mean to tell me you'll spot my twinkle? And the illogical one…..
    No way my friend. There is no way you will see a sparkle from 300 km!!!
    All those who see satellites passing fast in white light in the sky is an illogical thing. That's why you don't see satellites in the sky. You do see airplanes that can twinkle, you do see balloons that can light up or twinkle. There is no way you will see a small sparkle from a distance of 300 km.

    B. Regarding the space station - I can write you 5 pages about all the anomalies of the space station. There is so much pike in this thing. Maybe later in the dialogue I will write about it.

    3. GPS:
    I proved to you that the police prepare a cell phone only on the basis of 3 cellular antennas and not satellites. If so, the GPS also works on cellular antennas.
    I showed you about tropospheric zeroing that the cellular antennas (note that there are cellular antennas with standing rectangular boxes and there are also with small plates) can also work like this

    4. Returns from satellites - until you specify how far this is, I cannot comment on this.

    Bottom line - I'm purposely highlighting Musk's car because NASA is involved, and I've learned in life that if someone lies to you once, then they lie to you a lot.

    If we continue the discussions, in the last year I have researched in depth the history of the heliocentric world between the years 1500 and 1950 and there is no proof or measurement for anything. It's all conjecture, guesses and lies. I'll give you a little taste - I'll show you a little problem and we'll see if you can find an explanation that makes sense - measuring the speed of light.
    The speed of light is known to be 300,000 km per second - the first to "really measure" was the French scientist Armand Piso - from Wikipedia:
    "In 1849 he was the first person to calculate the speed of light on Earth. He passed a beam of light through a cog wheel, the beam traveled 8 km until it reached the mirror that returned it, then the beam returned the same 8 km to the cog wheel which, during the time of the movement, rotated fast enough for the beam to pass through the next gap in the cogs and reach the viewer's eye. By dividing the distance traveled by the beam by the time it takes for the wheel of changes to "go" one tooth, the speed of light was calculated to be 315,000 km per second, a deviation of about 5% from the correct value (about 300,000 km per second). He then published the first experimental results calculated using the method he developed for measuring the speed of light.

    Where is the problem?????? The light beam travels 16 km in 0.000053 seconds!!! 0.000053 seconds again!!! Before the experiment, he put 720 teeth in the wheel and turned it at a speed of 1562 revolutions per minute (1562 RPM). Now come and tell me how he measured 0.000053 seconds? Even today it is difficult to measure this. Then it is explained that he noticed that 1 gear turned and it was exactly the time of the speed of light. Now, let's calculate how many gears move in a second - 720 * 1562 / 60 seconds = 18,744 teeth moved in one second! So how did he notice that one cog had passed? Or how did you measure 0.000053 seconds? Remember - to find speed you must know distance and time. Speed ​​cannot be determined without measuring time. If he had seen 2 teeth then the speed would have been only 150 thousand km per second. And if he saw 4 teeth (the time in seconds is 0.0002…….) then the speed, wonder and wonder, is only 75 thousand km per second.
    Therefore I will ask you again - how did he notice 1 cog wheel or a time of 0.000053?
    The importance of this experiment is great because 50 years later Einstein based on these and other measurements established the theory of relativity. He did not use computers or lasers that did not exist.

    Best regards

    giving

  200. giving
    I know for sure there are satellites for many reasons.

    1. I point the Yes antenna to Levin and pick up, I move a few degrees and lose reception.

    2. I see many satellites in the eye.
    A. The orbit of the International Space Station is known, and can be seen if it passes over us shortly after an error
    B. There is a type of Magellan Schenker satellite that has large receivers and is in low orbit. It is very easy to see them at certain times - if you know where and when. There is a phone app that tells you when a visible satellite is passing by. I got to see such satellites even during the day!

    3. I have a GPS. I know exactly how the device works because I have dealt with this field in the past.

    4. I have seen returns from radar satellites several times. I won't elaborate...

    Note that a condition for seeing a satellite is that you will be in the dark and the satellite will be in the light. There is a relatively short time frame in which this happens.

    There are something like 1100-1200 active satellites - and half of them are in low orbit. The "area" where such satellites are located is about 200 million square kilometers. That is, every square of 300 thousand square kilometers has one satellite on average. This is an area 50 times the size of Israel. And in addition - not every satellite has large solar collectors.

    Matan - Forgive me, but your logic is not good 🙂 You want to believe in stupid conspiracies, so have fun. Just don't associate such beliefs with logic. or to intelligence….

  201. Hello Nissim and hello also to the author of the article Elisaf

    I wrote the previous comment why you don't see moons.

    I don't understand - I would appreciate it if you could answer me:
    - There is currently a car that has circled the earth at a distance of 250-300 km and it is supposed to circle higher until it leaves the orbit of the earth
    -Thousands of satellites (most existing satellites) orbit at this height
    - The space station orbited at an altitude of 350 km
    - Each satellite has solar wings that are supposed to twinkle for a long distance

    So why don't you see any glimmer of Levin?? Can't see any satellite? Don't see the space station?

    I will give you an example: you are now at noon in an open field of 10-20 km by 10-20 km. In the field I lay out hundreds of mirrors measuring 10 cm each and move them. You mean to tell me you won't see any glitter??? You won't see any mirror but you will see dozens/hundreds of sparkles.

    And let's say the camera only takes one frame per second, if there are thousands of satellites then at least it will pick up 1 twinkle from 1 satellite every 1 second. But nothing, nothing. there's nothing.

    Do you really believe that Tesla is in space? It looks so fake. Even Elon Musk said in an interview after the launch about the Tesla in space:
    "You can tell it is real, because it looks fake, honestly"
    Real - check what he said

    But again, how do you know there are satellites in space??? Because they tell us?? Why don't you see any holiday satellites around the country?

    And miracles - what you said about satellite satellites from Israel - who told you it was a satellite? Who told you that it is hundreds of kilometers away from you? did you know NASA launches 15-20 balloons a year! to a height of 10-20 km! Each balloon weighs 2 tons! It has meteorology equipment, communication, a telescope and more! Each balloon lasts from several weeks to several months! did you know that Why the hell do you need balloons if there are thousands of satellites in space? Why does none of humanity know this?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i47s97wBujY&feature=youtu.be

    There is no logical reason why you don't see a satellite or a glint of a satellite in the LIVE photo of the Tesla. Unless……

  202. Anonymous (unidentified) user
    The satellites are very far from each other, so the chance of seeing a twinkle is very low. Look up a little after sunset - you can barely see a satellite or two. By the way - some satellites are sometimes seen even before sunset!

    The exposure time of these photographs is low, so no stars are seen. Try to take pictures at night - you won't see stars either.

  203. Have you seen the Tesla hovering around the Earth?
    Tell me 2 things - why don't you see satellites or reflections of satellites that see the car against the background of the Earth, there are thousands of satellites all around us, aren't there?
    And a second question, when you see the deep space in the background of the car - why don't you see stars? Do you only see everything black?
    And on top of that, why do you see the images that a switching station transmits and you also don't see satellites or the reflections of satellites?

  204. Why not parachutes:
    1. Parachutes weigh more than the amount of fuel needed in this method.
    2. It is impossible to direct parachutes to land in the required position. A bit of a problem in landing something about 40 meters long and weighing 30 tons.
    3. Using parachutes, the launcher reaches the ground too fast, which will bend the chassis a little, or even more than a little.
    4. If you drop it in the sea, then of course you can't reach the rig. The launcher got wet and the salt water causes corrosion that will not allow it to be launched again.

  205. to June,
    The terms cannot be used because they are not durable enough. The missile moves at supersonic speed (more than 1,200 km/h!). A parachute opened at such a speed immediately ruptured.

    In addition, parachutes do not allow a precise landing as it should be for landing on a ship or landing.

  206. Don't understand why he doesn't have parachutes? Isn't it simpler? Sure it's good in case you run out of gas.

  207. Thank you!

    When I watched the broadcast from the vehicle's cameras, I noticed that a kind of crumbs / particles / sparks were constantly flying upwards from it, it continued even hours after the launch and increased over time, do you have any idea what it could be?

  208. It should be noted that on the vehicle's computer monitor is written "!Don't Panic" in large and welcoming letters - the motto of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

    I wonder what Zapod Biblebrooks would say about that.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.

Skip to content