Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
There are too many proofs that the earth is at rest, but i would like to show you one very primitive example which corroborates this already 100 % proven fact :
>>>A strong cast-iron cannon was placed with the muzzle upwards. The barrel was carefully tested with a plumb line, so that its true vertical direction was secured; and the breech of the gun was firmly embedded in sand up to the touch-hole, against which a piece of slow match was placed. The cannon had been loaded with powder and ball, previous to its position being secured. At a given moment the slow match at D was fired, and the operator retired to a shed. The explosion took place, and the ball was discharged in the direction A, B. In thirty seconds the ball fell back to the earth, from B to C; the point of contact, C, was only 8 inches from the gun, A. This experiment has been many times tried, and several times the ball fell back upon the mouth of the cannon; but the greatest deviation was less than 2 feet, and the average time of absence was 28 seconds; from which it is concluded that the earth on which the gun was placed did not move from its position during the 28 seconds the ball was in the atmosphere. Had there been motion in the direction from west to east, and at the rate of 600 miles per hour (the supposed velocity in the latitude of England), the result would have been as shown in fig. 49. The ball, thrown by the powder in the direction A, C, and acted on at the same moment by the earth's motion in the direction A, B, would take the direction A, D; meanwhile the earth and the cannon would have reached the position B, opposite to D. On the ball beginning to descend, and during the time of its descent, the gun would have passed on to the position S, and the ball would have dropped at B, a consider-able distance behind the point S. As the average time of the ball's absence in the atmosphere was 28 seconds--14 going upwards, and 14 in falling--we have only to multiply the time by the supposed velocity of the earth, and we find that instead of the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun, it should have fallen behind it a distance of 8400 feet, or more than a mile and a half! Such a result is utterly destructive of the idea of the earth's possible rotation.<<<
First of all, Mr Rowbotham calculated wrong : the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun should have fallen behind it more than 4.6 miles (not "more than a mile and a half")!!!
Now, i would like to point out a few important details in relation to this experiment :
1. When the ball was discharged upwards, gravitational pull ceased to make any significant influence (for all intents and purposes) to the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight!
2. The ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward direction of flight (all the way to the point when gravitational pull regained/resumed it's influence to that ball after 14th seconds of the first half of it's vertical flight), and the ball was perfectly able to pass (in the same manner) through the air in it's downward path - coming back to the earth, also.
3. Since the ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward and downward direction we can be sure that this same ball would be able to pass through any kind of a supposed air flow which could theoretically blow (due to the alleged lateral motion of the atmosphere - in relation to the flying ball - due to the alleged rotation of the earth)
THE QUESTION : Having in mind above three enumerated information i would like to hear from any HC maniac what kind of physical mechanism could provide/caused 4,6 miles long ALLEGED lateral displacement of the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight???
Yeah, slugger Aldrin.Ooops.If you're happy to live your life in fantasy world, then fair enough.
There's nothing I can do to make you see reality through the stories of what you adhere to from these people who sell you this utter CGI.
I have nothing against you for believing it, because, let's face it...you have nothing to marry it up against from anything physically real in your life, so why not adopt this.
shhh!
Take care yourself, they have strong arguments, you know.
This is Aldrin punch is more effective than Aldrin walking. He is my nightmare.
Imagine having to live nearly 50 years knowing you're hero worshipped for utter bullshit.
Bart did not knockout like me.
As a result, flat earth believes doesn't easy knockout.
I'm still confused on how a man falls by a bit tripping in a place that g is 1/6 of world g?
If Bart could make a trip to Aldrin, he could win the match.
The Earth cannot be spherical and stationary at the same time.
True.
At my school we have Rugby posts, and because of the curvature of the Earth, they are slightly further apart at the top than at the bottom, I measured it using a ruler, it's about an inch more. Please explain how this deviation would be possible on a flat earth thanks
From my understanding, the Flat Earth model has a dome atmosphere, which to a contemporary scientist is completely wrong.
Most people (Sheeple, as you call them) consider the atmosphere to fade very slowly, with no hard border, which is due in part to gravity, which similarly fades off as you get further.
However, the proposed dome suggests that the atmosphere cuts off abruptly, with a relatively constant air pressure, and that there is a mysterious edge of the universe.
This dome contains things that would have to be very small, which are otherwise explained as distant; Something many lightyears away would be less than a planck length large in this model.
The sun is explained as a spotlight, but why would it act as such?, spinning around physically, not even orbiting the Earth.
Other planets, such as Mars, have moons, which shouldn't be possible on other planets, as they don't have gravity.
How about Satelites? If you take a telescope, you CAN see the ISS. Even if you can't use a telescope, can you explain how GPS work?
I love how you'll deeply question FE ideas, but you don't put what you've been taught through the same scrutiny. You just automatically assume what you've been taught is dead accurate, right?
These are amateur star gazers, and here is what they claim they see when they gaze into the heavens with telescopes:
Not quite what NASA shows us, hey?
They get to what's interpreted as that under the existing model, but that's a key thing to recall. Science is based on the interpretation of evidence, and often that interpretation is done in line with accepted scientific fact. Which is great, just neither here nor there when dealing with models that aren't that.
Some molecules get evacuated, but far from all: the difference would actually be relatively minor.
Plus, the potential decrease in force exerted by air would be balanced by the increase in ease of motion due to a lack of resistance by air.
Vacuum chambers get trickier under denpressure, I'd have to look up a past discussion to give much detail, but it also gets fairly into the theory of molecules.
Don't talk about jet streams okey? This difference caused by wrong of map.I'll translate for Intikam: "Don't talk about jet streams, because I don't have any idea how they work, and if I took the time to learn, then it would utterly destroy this theory that I've already sunk way too much time into."
Science is null and lead us to nothing, it is the parasite of real advance.I agree.
I love science but most of it is net wasted energy.
Man does not need much.
There is more than enough land on this earth for every man, woman and child to have at least 1 acre free and clear. Imagine what a family could do.
The land, left alone can provide for everybody in a peaceful manner without fancy technolgy. There is no over-population problem. There is an evil, greedy neurotic bastard problem of folks raping and pillaging other folks.
The quest for the unknown may be fun but it is unnecessary. Everything that man can conceivably need to know can be passed on from generation to generation without a classroom.
How do the satellites continually cope with that with the obvious change in so called gravity and bearing in mind that they should need CONTINUOUS fuel usage to correct the so called orbit.
But still what of the solar system and galaxies, why are they flat.
I keep hearing analogies about pizzas, but a pizza is nothing like a solar system or a galaxy, solar systems and galaxies aren't being spun horizontally, or at least they shouldn't be, according to their theory of gravity, they should be spinning every which way, producing globular solar systems and galaxies, not flat ones.
Hello everybody,
Today we'll see how is the sun moving away and how is popular science tomfool.
These images from a video while sun is setting.
This is one.
A few minutes or hours later. (We don't know what the video x speed) Same sun and same location.
We see the sun as significant shrunken. Compare two suns before sunset and while sunsetting.
I wonder which idiotly science will try to explain with what?
The video link is on the below you can find out these pictures on it.
Good by round earth theory.
I find out another good video shows the sun is clearly shrunken while moving away with different examples.
How is it possible if the sun is 93 zero zero zero zero zero zero miles away? Do not force your mind, It is impossible.
The Stars
The Stars are not, as the satanic liars want you to believe, giant spheres of burning gas. The Stars are not physical entities at all; they are caused by sonoluminescence. Sonoluminescence is a phenomena in which light can be created by sonic waves propagating through water. Here is this effect in action, on a small scale:
The creator of that video himself stated that "It looked like a star in the heavens", and it most certainly does. The sonic waves that create the stars are caused by tectonic movement deep in the Earth, and from Sheol, which I will explain more about in a minute. These sonic waves propagate through the Firmament and the Celestial Ocean, where they cause these sonoluminescent lights that we call stars. The movement of the stars is caused by steady currents in the Celestial Ocean.
It takes about 28 days for the moon to orbit the earth but it always comes out at night.....it should be on the opposite side for half of the nights per 28 days......so it should only appear at night half of the nights in a 28 day period....
Thank you for telling me what a thread is, nut job. Perhaps next, you will explain the sky or maybe the ocean?
It could be that instead of the constant acceleration, there's a constant force that pulls everything to the center, and so people can actually live on both sides.
What about it?
Seriously?? Read the thread!
I thought you were going to make a point.l I guess I was wrong.
NASA take photos and edit them before releasing them to the world for everyone to see.
I don't see the issue here! NASA clearly state that they edit all photos.
They do this so the image is cleaned up and colours are brighter and more clarity.
So what is the issue here? Every photo you see in mainstream media is totally edited for out benefit.
NASA edit the photos so they look nice whats the big deal.
Some people think that they add in things like clouds and take others out..... SO WHAT?
Regardless of what they edit, the earth is still a globe there is no changing that
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.QuoteGeneral relativity (GR) is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from the warping of space and time by those masses. General relativity has developed into an essential tool in modern astrophysics. It provides the foundation for the current understanding of black holes, regions of space where gravitational attraction is so strong that not even light can escape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#General_relativity_and_the_equivalence_principle
Gravity is inconsistent with FE.
So not just me and sokarul then jroa.
Please show us where you believe GR supports a flat earth model, it is much easier to tear people down than to build yourself up, don't be caught in a lesser path.
You have still not provided a single case in which relativity contradicts FET. If you can't support your claims, then please stay out of the debate section. This forum is for the big kids.
Flat Earth theorisers have different views on it, but when you take our views together, it makes sense. So some believe the moon is a sphere, which explains why it looks round to everyone, and some say it's a disk, which shows why it's the same phase everywhere. So in total, it actually explains it all perfectly.
You post a silly picture!This is not up for debate,It is the debate section, is it not?
. Not even debatable.
Now how about you show me your evidence of a star doing a full rotation.
Just because you have spoken something, does not mean that it's debatable whether or not it's true.
Here's a picture of how the stars go 'round:
If you're still not convinced, take a timelapse photo yourself. I'd love to see the result, and I'm sure you'd be fascinated by it too.
You have no evidence of a star doing a full rotation!
And now you want me to do the work to prove you are correct!
You are not quite the full quid are you?
This is not up for debate,It is the debate section, is it not?
. Not even debatable.
Now how about you show me your evidence of a star doing a full rotation.
You are claiming that you not only watched a star rotate 360 degree's but you saw this happen nearly 7 times in less than a week. I have never seen a star do a full rotation in the sky. Well there you go, you learn something every day.
Yes, almost seven full rotations. I was there for a few hours less than a week.
Yeah if the sun was at the tropic of cancer then every shadow in Australia should be pointing South
^_^
There is something weird going on though, all this space stuff really seems fake but that could be a troll.
The ISS interview videos do look like green screen and the only spacewalk video I looked at had a strap that showed signs of buoyancy ie being underwater
The moon and sun being almost identical in size can't be just chance.
I would like to check out some landmarks that are supposed to be visible from certain distances,like a mountain off the coast of Italy
AHAHAHAHAHAH
you should have satellites SUCKERS, you just said those are photos, in fact they are, photos and some shitty graphic.
AND NO ROUND EARTH.
I've no doubt you're all paid for this.
suck my cock bro'. say hello to satan for me, I stay with GOD.
god told every religion the truth. the earth is flat and all.
stop looking in bullshits science, read the sacred books of every religion and you'll know.
they all are path to god.
you won't save you and you won't understand nothing that way.
or you're freemasons and you should suck my cock. another time, another place. goodbye.
So thats what you imagine?How much money would they waste if they did?
The blue color of the ocean in these pictures is put in by google, because they don't waste money by taking photos of empty ocean.
I don't know, but considering that the majority of Earth's surface is open ocean, I'd imagine it would increase the cost significantly. And pictures of open ocean generally aren't useful for Google Earth users.
Maybe its because they do not want to have any more images of islands that do not exist.
http://www.livescience.com/28822-sandy-island-undiscovered.html
