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.
Both magnetic poles are underneath the geographical north pole (roughly).
Actually I think the big question is how do ships find their way if they are using gyro compasses that rely on the rotation of the Earth. Does FET say that FE rotates because if not that'd cause some major issues. If FE rotates then comes the question does the atmosphere rotate too? It must or else we'd have some pretty hefty winds. If the atmosphere does rotate with the Earth, what keeps it from being spun away from earth or at least from the center?
Good question.
The FE'ers are kind of conflicted. Some say that the FE and the "Atmolayer" rotates but if that were true we'd all go flying into the Icewall. Others point to "Celestial Gears" which make the rest of the universe rotate around the FE.
You have an MS in biotech? I'm considering getting the same. Do you think it was worth it?OP: When values in a math equation change, so do the results. That's essentially what I got out of it anyways.
And yet according to RET they shouldn't.
Compasses follow magnetic field lines. They don't point to the center of the earth.Yes, but if I'm understanding your model correctly, the magnetic field lines would extent vertically out of the center and go back vertically through the other parts of the earth. The compass would want to align up and down.
This definitely requires a quote. Until recently, no scientist would tell you if the expansion was accelerating or decelerating, so my guess is not one scientist has ever even suggested expansion beyond the speed of light.the big bang was one huge explosion and in no way a constant source of energy. it wasn't focused in one direction becaue wherever you point your instruments, you see remains of that energy in the microwaves spectrum.
ua doesn't work because nothing could generate constant acceleration for billion of years.
And yet, top round-earth physicists say that one day all the stars in the sky will be moving away from every other star faster than the speed of light.
In general, as people interested in Science, I think we should discuss the quality of the information available, not as a comment on each other but as part of any review of scientific articles.
This is really not worth our time.
At a distance of 55 km, on a spherical earth we would see a midpoint (highest point) curvature obstacle of some 59 meters, following an ascending slope, and a descending slope to be complete.
What YOU do not get or understand, is that even from 240 meters, we MUST see an ascending slope, and a midpoint visual obstacle of some 59 meters, no such thing is present in the photographs.
On a spherical Earth there MUST be a slope, otherwise you agree the Earth is flat.
You cannot use thermal inversion when we have clear photographs taken from some 240 m in altitude. Thermal inversion (looming) can be used as an argument in the case of eyewitness accounts who are located on the beach/shoreline of the point of observation; in the case of clear photographs, thermal inversion cannot make a 59 meter curvature simply disappear.
We can see the shoreline of Toronto NOT in spite of a 59 meter curvature, but in the absence of such a visual obstacle.
According to that drawing, it would never get dark. The sun would revolve over the flat Earth, and it would be eternally day, or am I seeing that wrong?
Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.
It's really not semantics, you're just wrong. In everyday life when you look down a hill things may be obstructed by it, and you may see taller objects in the distant but with part of their bottom structure cut off. You need to think about it differently and I don't think at this point it can be put in any other way. It's something you'll just have to realize in your own time.
i have shown it in pictures exactly what happens. can you demonstrate differently? so far all who have opposed have failed.
feel free to return to the discussion when you have something new to say with evidence to disprove my claim.