Atmosphere the Chief Obstacle. “The proceeding is based on the assumption …

Comment on New forum by ProperGander.

Atmosphere the Chief Obstacle.

“The proceeding is based on the assumption that there is nothing in the path of the reflected rays except the tenuous medium filling all space. But the planets have atmospheres which absorb and refract. We see remote objects less distinctly, we perceive stars long after they have fallen below the horizon. This is due to absorption and refraction of the rays passing through the air. While these effects cannot be exactly estimated, it is certain that the atmosphere is the chief impediment to the study of the heavens.”

Some food for thought- the above quote is by Nikola Tesla.

ProperGander Also Commented

New forum
If the photos of the Moon are of the Moon on the horizon and the star is higher up, it might be conceivable that the atmospheric refraction could cause such a mirage effect.

The fact that we can experience a mirage might also point to the explanation.

I have a feeling the above reasoning would or could be the explanation offered by the ‘mainstream’.

Its not that I think the Moon is or isn’t a solid body. I really don’t have a clue. Just offering up some ideas. I lean towards non solid but that’s me.

I am obviously just pulling ideas out of the air as we cannot actually go to the star or the Moon to test any of this out. All we can do is look up at the sky. Or watch some pictures on a screen of one kind of another and assume what we are seeing is more than just a Hollywood style production.

New forum
Some of these balloon videos seem to be video composites. The distortion of the horizon is the “fisheye” lens effect. One does not see any evidence of the same distortion on the foreground image. This is odd.The Sun also looks like a lens flare and not a bright white hot disc in many of these videos, which I think also makes them questionable.

This video shows what I mean:

The Red Bull videos are another example. This is guerrilla-marketing material and needs to be scrutinized as these videos too seem to present a ‘warped’ view of reality.

Flying squirrel suited men are another example of hoax videos posted as real.

New forum
If one searches the internet long enough, they will come across a few photos that show a star seen above a crescent Moon. The star will be in the area where one would assume the Moon to be were it illuminated.

I’d imagine a simple explanation could be something related to atmospheric refraction causing the apparent positions of the celestial objects to appear overlapped when they physically are not.

One need not resort to mathematical concepts like say, back holes.

Recent Comments by ProperGander

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
I believe the mainstream physics answer is the object possesses the inertia of the area it originated from.

A projectile shot north from the Equator possesses some 1000 mph velocity compared to say 900 mph some distance north.

Same reasoning holds true for mine shafts and bombs. The velocity higher up is greater than at below sea level, for example.

Not very satisfying when you think about it, but there it is.

They seem to forget about gravity and centripetal force law.

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
Just to clarify. I’m posting what the mainstream ‘heliocentric’ theory is and how it works and why I think it can be proven to be flawed.

The atmosphere, in this theory, is supposed to possess the same inertia that causes the rotation of the globe.

Gravity, in this theory, is what keeps the gases from flying off the globe. Gravity is the centripetal force that produces the illusionary “centrifugal” force as a result of the effects of inertia. The latter effect would cause the gases of the atmosphere and all matter of the Earth, to fly off into space, were it not for ‘gravity’.

So in this theory, the gases move with the Earth according to centripetal /centrifugal motion. The mathematical equations show the square distance rule at work.The velocity at double the radius is not 2x but 1.4x as great.

The gases of the atmosphere are subject to the very same force of gravity an apple is.

Newton was incorrect when he applied fluid dynamics to the motions of the heavenly bodies and the presumptive motions of the Earth. The mistake is forgetting how centrifugal forces actually work.
The other mistake is ignoring demonstrable ballistics.

We cannot reproduce in a lab on Earth, the result of his famed cannonball thought experiment.

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
I’d assume that in this model, the atmosphere would follow the laws of fluid dynamics and act like you suggest.

The basic point is that centripetal and centrifugal type experiments and math, clearly show that Newton was wrong in applying a model of fluid dynamics to the apparent motions of the stars and planets. His cannonball thought experiment is as nonsensical as the Einstein thought experiments.

The very model they use, precludes things like the Coriolis effect.

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
GPS can be explained with simple electromagnetic type transmission towers set up at set distances along the surface of the Earth. Like say cell towers or the wireless base stations.

Wires can and are run across the oceans. The world might simply be wired like your home or office network.

Then there’s the idea of the ionosphere and using that to transmit radio waves. This idea goes back to the early days of radio.

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
The gases would be subject to centripetal laws and would follow along in a squared root type proportion so that as the radius (distance from the surface of the Earth) doubles, the velocity along the arc is only 1.4x as great Yet the distance along this arc is doubled. So it would take a cloud in the upper atmosphere that much incrementally longer to reach the same point that the Earth’s surface rotates into. It would not follow exactly along like the rotating land mass does.

Brings up the whole reason for the Earth’s spin and how that and gravity work together.

The spin is due to cooling or something like that in the mainstream thinking as far as I can tell.

So if the spin was less, the centripetal force would pull us to the Earth more. That is, the effect of gravity would be increased. If the rotation of the Earth would increase, the pull of gravity would lessen. At least according to centrifugal/centripetal law.

Mass effects gravity. So mass effects the centripetal or real force. The spin or rotation is the result of inertia, so centrifugal is a false force of sorts. The curvature, the result of centripetal force pulling on a mass that would like to fly off into space in what would seem to be a straight line.

Centrifugal force is an illusion. Centripetal force is real and in this case it is gravity – the pull towards the center of Earth’s center.

This force is what defines the shape of the arc or orbit. That is, the closer to the Earth, the more this centripetal force is going to pull and the tighter the resulting arc of orbit becomes. Atomic clocks proving Einstein right, show the different potential of the gravity field at different heights.

This means more energy is required to make the same turn at the same velocity. The larger the radius, the less energy required to make the same turn. And if there is the lag due to centripetal force, and the velocity does not double like the distance, then would we not assume the higher object would lag the object on Earth’s surface and not lead like Newton and Galileo claim?

And if the force of gravity is such that the atmosphere can cover that distance in the same time as the Earth’s surface, then we’d expect a bomb to fall exactly where it would as if the Earth was unmoving (sans atmosphere). As the centripetal force tightens the arc and the apparent velocity of our object will be adjusted accordingly.

The same energy, in this model, is a spin at the Poles and a tangential velocity at the circumference. It is the combination of inertia (IE the cooling of the mass) and the effect of the mass curving ‘space time’ that gives the globe its motion and shape.

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.