Hello, I'm new here and would like to ask 2 topics:
1. How does FET model explain sun & moon eclipse?
2. Many ancient maps (Piris Reis, etc) depicted a very detailed but totally different earth terrain, with a huge continent at the equator called "Terra Australis Incognita" (unknown land of the South), also called "Insula Atlantis (by Plato etc). Those maps were very common before Columbus era, said were circulated and copied for thousand years before.
According to those maps (attached below), seems like those outer "Antarctic Walls" was once at the center/equatorial, like current North Pole in FET model. With mainstraim model, this can be explained by pole shift. Any thoughts or explanations for this matter on FET model?
Thanks in advance.
PS: ancient maps images at https://imageshack.com/i/pn4zVszJj and https://imageshack.com/i/poHwgEnpj. The upload button below redirected to imageshack site but couldn't find how to attach in here.
Shalom and thank you, Luke.I am not Luke, but your "simple math questioning how can a 3.6 m2 ball moving at 1.1 m/h create gravity. Yep, that's a 1 : 100,000,000 scale of "the Earth spinning the Sun" according to mainstream science." has a very simple answer.
I just posted in your thread regarding top 10 proof, presenting a simple math questioning how can a 3.6 m2 ball moving at 1.1 m/h create gravity. Yep, that's a 1 : 100,000,000 scale of "the Earth spinning the Sun" according to mainstream science. It doesn't add up to me.
But still, objectively, on the contrary, I'm still baffled why mainstraim science can predict eclipses accurately. This simple question could jeopardize the whole FET model. Any thoughts?
Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?
Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.
Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?No "Robin Givens" here and what does "move (in any speed)" have to do with creating gravity?
Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.
Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?
Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.
All objects with mass exert gravity, regardless of shape. If an object has enough mass, the gravity it exerts will collapse it into a spherical shape because of the pressure from all sides, much like a raindrop due to surface tension. This rounding is known as hydrostatic equilibrium, and is one of the requirements for a body in the solar system to be considered a planet.
That's all you need to worry about. Anything beyond that is way over your head.
Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?No "Robin Givens" here and what does "move (in any speed)" have to do with creating gravity?
Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.
Gravitation comes from mass[1], not movement or even rotation.
And if you regard the gravitational equation as "genius supercomplex equation",
then please don't get involved in GR as a lot of Flat Earthers quite unnecessarily try to do!
[1] Just in case some FE pedant is reading this, energy can also bend space-time causing gravitation.
Shalom and thank you, Luke.I am not Luke, but your "simple math questioning how can a 3.6 m2 ball moving at 1.1 m/h create gravity. Yep, that's a 1 : 100,000,000 scale of "the Earth spinning the Sun" according to mainstream science." has a very simple answer.
I just posted in your thread regarding top 10 proof, presenting a simple math questioning how can a 3.6 m2 ball moving at 1.1 m/h create gravity. Yep, that's a 1 : 100,000,000 scale of "the Earth spinning the Sun" according to mainstream science. It doesn't add up to me.
But still, objectively, on the contrary, I'm still baffled why mainstraim science can predict eclipses accurately. This simple question could jeopardize the whole FET model. Any thoughts?Not everything scales in the simple way you suggest.
But, before I can go further, what is the size of this "3.6 m2" ball? Do you mean area or what?
And where does 1.1 m/h come into it. Gravity does not depend on velocity!
A 1 : 100,000,000 scale
of the earth would be 0.1274 m in diameter.
of the sun would be about 13.92 m in diameter.
and they would be about 1,490 m apart. If my quick calculations are not up the creek!
So where does this 3.6 m2 ball come in?Try again, Dick Whittington, as the old folk tale went.
Actually Einstein's theories were developed to explain observed phenomena and saying he did "eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" is a little odd that bit-by-bit his theories are being verified by experiment.Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?No "Robin Givens" here and what does "move (in any speed)" have to do with creating gravity?
Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.
Gravitation comes from mass[1], not movement or even rotation.
And if you regard the gravitational equation as "genius supercomplex equation",
then please don't get involved in GR as a lot of Flat Earthers quite unnecessarily try to do!
[1] Just in case some FE pedant is reading this, energy can also bend space-time causing gravitation.
Of course everybody knows about “spacetime curvature due to mass” dogma. Was Einstein telling a fact? Well, not to Tesla. That’s exactly why he said "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality".
Actually Einstein's theories were developed to explain observed phenomena and saying he did "eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" is a little odd that bit-by-bit his theories are being verified by experiment.Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?No "Robin Givens" here and what does "move (in any speed)" have to do with creating gravity?
Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.
Gravitation comes from mass[1], not movement or even rotation.
And if you regard the gravitational equation as "genius supercomplex equation",
then please don't get involved in GR as a lot of Flat Earthers quite unnecessarily try to do!
[1] Just in case some FE pedant is reading this, energy can also bend space-time causing gravitation.
Of course everybody knows about “spacetime curvature due to mass” dogma. Was Einstein telling a fact? Well, not to Tesla. That’s exactly why he said "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality".
The effects of some such as
- Relativistic increase of mass has been show to be valid well over 50 years ago with the behavior of high energy particle beams - originally in CRT's and X-ray machines.
- This mass increase and the "speed limit" at the velocity of light is just part of the working theory of modern high energy particle accelerators.
- Time dilation and gravitation affects the rate of atomic clocks and was observed first with clocks put in aircraft circumnavigating the earth in opposite directions and now is simply built into the design of the GPS system.
- And we now seemingly have his "gravitation wave" predictions verified. I say "seemingly" because in real science ideas and experiments are not finally accepted until the likelihood of the result being a chance occurrence is virtually zero!
If you look at the wider fields of science (outside the bit that impinges on your pet ideas) you will find that most scientists are working on topics of quite practical importance.
Just take you blinkers off and look around at their work in medicine, agriculture and other areas of food production and so many other related areas.
GPS is not out of context because it wouldn't work if it were not for GR.