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.

Topics - cikljamas

Pages: [1] 2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / AUSTRALIA
« on: August 31, 2021, 05:26:51 AM »
Is this the end of common sense, democracy, freedom :

Flat Earth General / NASA EPIC LIES
« on: May 30, 2020, 04:45:45 AM »

What follows is at the level (of credibility) of the fairytale about 9/11 highjacker passport that was allegedly found moments before the World Trade Center 2 (South Tower) collapsed :

Ronald McNair is next. He was a Mission Specialist on the crew. The official story is that this picture below is of Carl McNair, who just happens to be Ronald’s twin brother. If you believe that, then I’ve got some land in Florida I think you might be interested in. Here you can see “Carl” McNair on LinkedIn, where he happens to be a “Best-Selling Author, Inspirational Speaker and Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Education Consultant.”

Ellison Onizuka is still alive. The official story in Ellison’s case is also an “identical twin brother” coincidence. So apparently, that’s not Ellison on the right, it’s his brother Claude. Yeah, right. Wink, wink. :lol:


Challenger Crew Still Alive and Kicking :

Flat Earth General / EINSTEIN-MMX-AETHER
« on: November 08, 2019, 07:28:01 AM »
The fact that MMX is a “major plank” was stated well by Einstein’s biographer, Ronald Clark, who,  after the null results of MMX were spread around the world, everyone realized that there were three choices, and one of them was this one :

The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable. Einstein: The Life and Times, 1984, pp. 109-110.

So, if they firmly believed,that the Earth MUST move around the sun (since  they  think  Newton  proved it by claiming that the smaller MUST revolve around the larger), then they will devise a  system of physics that allows it.

How did they do it? Instead of making Earth constant, they opted to make light constant. If you make the Earth constant, then light speed has to vary. If you make light constant, then Earth has to move. There is no middle position.

So, all they needed to advertise to the world was that light speed is constant and could never decrease or increase, thus what  we thought we were seeing in the MMX was not really true.

But then they ran into some problems. When they made light constant, the physics forced  them to say that material objects shrink when they move, and that time itself changes, and that the mass of the object must increase.

These formulae appear over and over again in Einstein's 1905 paper as the explanation for almost every anomaly Einstein confronted in physics.

Next to Newton's F = ma, Einstein's contraction equation is the most used equation in modern physics today. But the natural question is, as Maxwell Abraham pointed out :

Why is light immune from the length contraction and time dilation that is applied to every other moving substance in the universe???

Einstein had no answer for this question.

The ether that he rejected in 1905 (in consequence of his desire to say that  light  would  be  constant  because  it  didn’t  have  to  travel  through  ether), suddenly came  back to be a necessity in his new General Theory. Einstein admitted  this  in 1916,  saying: 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general  theory  of  relativity.  It  does  remain  allowed,  as  always,  to  introduce  a  medium  filling  all  space  and  to  assume  that  the  electromagnetic  fields  (and  matter  as  well)  are  its states...once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity....Since in  the  new  theory,  metric  facts  can  no  longer  be  separated  from  “true”  physical  facts,  the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together. Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,” Morgan Manuscript,  EA  2070,  as  cited  in  Ludwik  Kostro, Einstein  and  the  Ether,  Aperion,  2000,  p.  2.  For  a  good summation of Einstein’s reasoning in regard to reviving the ether concept, see Galina Granek’s “Einstein’s Ether: Why Did Einstein Come Back to the Ether?” Apeiron, vol. 8, no. 3, July 2001

So, Einstein abolished the aether in STR, and established it again (10 years afterwards) in his GTR, but the real question is this :

Why he needed to introduce LENGTH CONTRACTION postulate in the fist place??? (Length Contraction postulate subsequently led to Time Dilation postulate, and Time Dilation postulate forced him to introduce Mass Increase postulate)

Let's repeat this passage once again :

So, all they needed to advertise to the world was that light speed is constant and could never decrease or increase, thus what we thought we were seeing in the MMX was not really true.

What does this (what we thought we were seeing in the MMX was not really true) really mean???

Let's observe MMX "null" result within No 1 assumption (Aether exists) :

Since within this scenario Aether exists (and the earth is traveling 30 km/s in it's alleged orbit around the sun) then we are going to expect impediment of a vertical beam, hence Michelson should have noticed a phase shift of 0.4 wavelengths.

Since Einstein claimed "null" result, for the sake of the argument let's assume that MMX really produced null result.

Now, it seems to me that all that Einstein really needed to do is to abolish the aether.


Because if stationary Aether exists and vertical beam is impeded due to earth's 30 km/s motion through the Aether, then you have to shrink vertical rod of Michelson's apparatus so that you can logically justify MMX "null" result.

In this scenario (Aether exists) an impediment of a vertical light beam is compensated with a shrinkage of a vertical rod.

What is going to happen if we tried to interpret MMX "null" result within No 2 assumption (Aether doesn't exist)?

If we assumed that Aether doesn't exist then there would be no expectation of an impediment of a vertical light beam, would it?

And if there would be no impediment of a vertical beam (since there would be no aether) then why would have Einstein needed to postulate LENGTH CONTRACTION postulate, in the first place???

Introducing LENGTH CONTRACTION postulate once that you've already abolished the aether would spoil the whole thing, because now you would again have to expect positive MMX result, though this time for a different reason, since this time a phase shift of 0.4 wavelengths would be the consequence of the faster (not slower) movement of a vertical light beam (in comparison with parallel beam), because light beam would traverse vertical rod in shorter amount of time due to the fact that vertical rod would be shorter.

Now, he needed another cure (Time Dilation)...

But why going through this whole trouble (Length Contraction/Time Dilation/Mass Increase) since Einstein could have simply abolished the aether and leave it at that?

Let's get back to No 1 assumption (Aether exists) :

In this scenario (Aether exists) an impediment of a vertical light beam is compensated with a shrinkage of a vertical rod.

But, by introducing (within this scenario (Aether exists)) Time Dilation postulate, we (Einstein) cancel out the benefit of Length Contraction postulate (a compensation for an impediment of a vertical light beam), aren't we (he)?

Suggestions & Concerns / FIRST AMENDMENT
« on: October 18, 2019, 03:47:14 AM »
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is 1th amendment still valid in US???

This is my question for moderators and administrators of this forum :

Since when citing US presidents, admirals, generals, and estimated intellectuals (many of whom are Jews) is a complete nonsense a.k.a. antisemitism?

« on: October 07, 2019, 06:00:36 AM »

According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist.The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.

I am very curious how english native speakers are going to interpret this Einstein's assertion : (Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.)...

Mysterious force that sways the constellations???

Verb sway :

1. Move back and forth or sideways
"the tall building swayed"

2. Move or walk in a swinging or swaying manner

3. Cause to move back and forth
"the wind swayed the trees gently"

If we supposed that Einstein hadn't been aware of geocentric truth then we would have to ask ourselves : why in the world would he have used such a phrase (Mysterious force that sways the constellations) given the fact that in HC universe there is no swaying of constellations (which (swaying in that (HC) case would be only the apparent phenomena)???

On the other hand, if Einstein was aware of geocentric truth (which truth/fact in all probability (almost certainly) he was perfectly aware of) then his assertion (formulation/phrase) would make perfect sense, wouldn't you agree???

Within HC theory, the phrase "Mysterious force that sways the constellations" makes no sense whatsoever, because the apparent phenomena of "swaying constellations" within the context of HC theory would be the consequence of earth's rotation on it's axis, so that the only phrase that in HC context would make sense would be something like this : "Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that throughout hundreds of millenniums maintains earth's rotation so amazingly stable."

So, the question is this : Did Einstein actually spill the beans??? What do you think?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
« on: September 23, 2019, 02:48:37 AM »
Introducing the Problem of Evil

Critics of religion have brought up this problem for centuries. An early statement comes from the Greek philosopher Epicurus.

David Hume called it "the rock of atheism". He phrases the problem like this:

J.L. Mackie came up with his own formula for the problem, known as the INCONSISTENT TRIAD.

    God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
    God is omnibenevolent (morally perfect)
    Evil exists

Mackie argues that these propositions are inconsistent; if two are two, the third must be false.
You can express the problem as a logical argument like this:

P1   There is a being who possesses omnipotence and perfect goodness
P2   A perfectly good being wishes to remove evil and an omnipotent being possess the power to do whatever it wishes
P3   There is evil
C1   P3 is impossible if P1 and P2 are true
C2   Therefore either P1 is false or P2 is false
P3   P2 is just an analysis of the meaning of goodness and omnipotence and cannot be false
C3   Therefore P1 is false

You might see a similarity between this argument and the Ontological Argument. Good! They are both examples of REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - following a premise to absurd or contradictory conclusions in order to show there is something wrong with the premise.

The ethical philosopher John Stuart Mill also supported the problem of evil, pointing out the happiness and suffering are not dispensed on earth with any sort of fairness. However, if the universe was ruled by a moral God, we would expect fairness. We don't see this fairness, which makes it less likely that God exists.

    if the law of all creation were justice and the Creator omnipotent then, in whatever amount suffering and happiness might be dispensed to the world, each person’s share of them would be exactly proportioned to that person’s good or evil deeds - J.S. Mill

"In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another, are Nature's every day performances. Killing, the most criminal act recognized by human nature, Nature does once to every being that lives; and in a large proportion of cases, after protracted tortures such as the greatest monsters whom we read of ever purposely inflicted on their fellow creatures … All this, Nature does with the most supercilious disregard both of mercy and of justice, emptying her shafts upon the best and noblest indifferently with the meanest and worst; upon those who are engaged in the highest and worthiest enterprises, and often as the direct consequence of the noblest acts … I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go." (John Stuart Mill, "Nature" in Three Essays on Religion (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1998) 5.)

On a simpler level, the Problem of Evil boils down to an ancient complaint:


Critics of religion argue that the concept of God makes no sense in a world where evil things occur.

First off : Apollo was not a hoax, but a straight up con of epic proportions.

Secondly : feel free to watch the best documentary ever uploaded on youtube about APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY (pay attention : download it, and reupload it on your channels, as soon as you can, since youtube is shutting my channel down) :








Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers. Suddenly you have people believing unquestioningly the universe started with a big bang explosion from absolutely nothing that happened 14 billion years ago (impossible to know what happened 50,000 years ago let alone 14 BILLION, talk about total insanity) or that people evolved from bacteria in the ocean, all utter nonsense that can never ever be demonstrated, tested or proven in any way. Just math equations and computer models that are entirely made up. But once a person accepts just one of their mind warping propaganda programs, they inevitably end up believing them all.

I think the apollo missions play a big part in how people form their beliefs about the world and the universe so much so that accepting them as hoax would cause their worldviews to collapse and I don’t think most people today are ready to face that kind of a fundamental change in their lives. It changes everything. The apollo missions are nasa’s way of proving to people that they got all the answers and that everything is the way they claim it is because they’re the only ones that have been out there. Now you have billions of people in the world who believe in them and their doctrine and anyone who disagrees with them is portrayed as an insane paranoid conspiracy theorist. The technique used by narcissists to destroy the credibility of their victims.

Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing. - It's called Van Allen Belt, the radiation would kill everyone and all electronics. The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such.  Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.

Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen

Do tell where all the O2 was kept for them to breathe, for a scuba divers tank will only last for about an hour without complicated rebreather technology. Surly there was no such device then. -Two astronots breathing 02 from the time they left earth, to the time they returned to earth about seven days just where was all this 02 stored? A SCUBA divers tank which holds 80 cubit feet of air would calculate to 13,440 cubic feet of air needed for roughly 7 days just for two people. The air locks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.

In1986 I was a 2nd Lt. and a newly minted, USAF officer and aviator, flying C-130s. One of my first operational missions was to fly some troops to Andrews AFB. We stayed in D.C. for two days. On one day, we wemt to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. When I saw the LEM and especially when I saw the lunar rover exhibit, a life size mock-up, I told one of my crewmates, another 2nd Lt., copilot, that this is b.s., no way they landed the LEM with that rover. After seeing that exhibit, I started questioning the veracity of the lunar landings. Most professional aviators do not have the balls to even question the lunar missions, let alone say that they were fake. Look at 911, any active aviator who questions 911 will be grounded. Few will say a thing when they know the Pentagon strike was a virtual impossibility. John Basilone

Blazing Saddles, Boyz in the Hood, Star Wars, and Back to the Future are just a few of the hundreds of films collected in the Library of Congress. But we’re to believe NASA can’t preserve the telemetry data from the moon missions. Hahahahahah!!!
Don’t get me wrong. Those are all great films but I believe the significance of the moon data  may be just a tad bit more important. I guess it’s hard to hold on to something that never existed.

"The only bird who can talk is the Parrot and he didn't fly very well.. There are great ideas left undiscovered to those who can peel away one of truths most protective layers."
- Neil Armstrong --------- Don't be a parrot people..



One other guy (below one other similar video) left this very interesting comment :

No... Rockets do not make what they push against to work. It's fluid does not matter if it's water... Or air... It works the exact same way...its like saying that a submarine makes the water that the propeller pushes against while it's on land.. people will agree that the submarine would not move..The same exact thing will happen to a rocket in space.. That is the dumbest and most idiotic wrong explanation of how rockets work that is even possible. Because space is as close of a perfect vacuum there is is impossible to have thrust... Saying that a rocket pushes off it's own gas from combustion is ludicrous... It's no different than saying that you can blow hard enough into a vacuum cleaner and make positive pressure... A vacuum cleaner is a very extremely small fraction of the vacuum of space....just like a vacuum cleaner will suck the air right out of your lungs... Space will do the same exact thing to a rocket... Only many many many many many many many many times quicker and the molecules will go in every direction evenly making thrust  impossible ....using small box like this moron... You release pressure into the box and after the box gets to 0 pressure... The rocket.. "can"...will apply force to the container until there is enough pressure to prevent this from happening then it will push off of its own gasses inside the box... This does absolutely nothing but prove that you should not listen to anything this idiot says at all... ever... until he admits this experiment is flawed and invalid.  If he does not at least do that... Then he is purposely deceiving people....personally I think he is deceiving people. I work with pressures and vacuums every single day I work and I guarantee that there is not a single person on this planet that can prove what I said was incorrect or untrue.  He does not have a vacuum pump that is able to take the gasses out of that chamber as fast as its being put in... Like it would be in space....he pulled a vacuum and closed a valve taking the vacuum pump ..."space" out of the experiment....invalid experiment... And he got the wrong conclusion because the experiment was invalid...

In his next response he said this :

You still did not say that I was wrong... So what the fuck was the point of your comment because I don't see one... you are a troll that somehow benifits off of the deceptions of the government...if u can't prove me wrong... Than go fuck yourself ...if you can prove wrong me then do it....are you telling me you do not know how things move through water...because thats all you need to understand  for proof rockets do not work in a vacuum... It's really that simple....will a submarine move that is on land that makes  the water that the propeller pushes against even if there was no friction between the submarine and ground... You are telling people that the submarine would move... research articles for what... How things move through water?...the only person that is not being logical is you... And also... What was your point of throwing in the GPS reference... Is that the only counter argument you have against what I said...are you saying that rockets work in space because the GPS loses reception in a tunnel... Damn you are desperate for a counter argument if u  threw that in there...who ever gave you a high school diploma needs to be fired... That's if you didn't drop out... Which I think is most likely

Finally, look what happens when you fly over the target :

Two days ago i uploaded video by the name YOUTUBE IS SHUTTING DOWN MY CHANNEL, and after a few hours they shut that video, too, so feel free to acquaint yourself with their fake excuse by reading just a few excerpts from my "hate speech" video :

I made this collage of screenshots on this guy's request :

Flat Earth Debate / SMOKING GUN
« on: March 21, 2019, 07:16:50 AM »
There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
This is precisely why the geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas Venus has changed its rotation by 6 minutes over the years it has been studied.


In terms of their sidereal rotation (time it takes for the planet to complete a single rotation on its axis) Earth and Mars are again in the same boat. While Earth takes precisely 23h 56m and 4 s to complete a single sidereal rotation (0.997 Earth days), Mars does the same in about 24 hours and 40 minutes.



Sidereal rotation period = 58.646 d (1407.5 h)

One of the weirdest facts about Mercury :

Mercury's axial tilt is almost zero, with the best measured value as low as 0.027 degrees.This is significantly smaller than that of Jupiter, which has the second smallest axial tilt of all planets at 3.1 degrees. This means that to an observer at Mercury's poles, the center of the Sun never rises more than 2.1 arcminutes above the horizon.


In January 2019, astronomers reported that a day ( SIDEREAL rotational period!!! ) on the planet Saturn has been determined to be  10h 33m 38s (+ 1m 52s/- 1m 19s), based on studies of the planet's C Ring.

The visible features on Saturn rotate at different rates depending on latitude and multiple rotation periods have been assigned to various regions (as in Jupiter's case).

Astronomers use three different systems for specifying the rotation rate of Saturn. System I has a period of 10 hr 14 min 00 sec (844.3°/d) and encompasses the Equatorial Zone, the South Equatorial Belt and the North Equatorial Belt. The polar regions are considered to have rotation rates similar to System I. All other Saturnian latitudes, excluding the north and south polar regions, are indicated as System II and have been assigned a rotation period of 10 hr 38 min 25.4 sec (810.76°/d). System III refers to Saturn's internal rotation rate. Based on radio emissions from the planet detected by Voyager 1 and Voyager 2,[73] System III has a rotation period of 10 hr 39 min 22.4 sec (810.8°/d). System III has largely superseded System II.

A precise value for the rotation period of the interior remains elusive. While approaching Saturn in 2004, Cassini found that the radio rotation period of Saturn had increased appreciably, to approximately 10 hr 45 min 45 sec (± 36 sec). The latest estimate of Saturn's rotation (as an indicated rotation rate for Saturn as a whole) based on a compilation of various measurements from the Cassini, Voyager and Pioneer probes was reported in September 2007 is 10 hr 32 min 35 sec.


Obliquity   7.25°
(to the ecliptic)
(to the galactic plane)

Right ascension
of North pole   286.13°
19 h 4 min 30 s

of North pole   +63.87°
63° 52' North

Sidereal rotation period
(at equator) 25.05 d
(at 16° latitude) 25.38 d
25 d 9 h 7 min 12 s
(at poles)34.4 d

Rotation velocity
(at equator)   7.189×103 km/h


In March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.


Geokinetics is not the best way to understand the physics. In fact, the geocentric
system makes more sense. For example, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to rotate
exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time. How can it do so when so
many  inertial  forces  (e.g., earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc.) are  impeding  its  rotation?

Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate by 6 minutes in the last few years. 
Likewise,  in  the geokinetic system, the Earth has  to revolve around the sun exactly  in 365.25
days. How does it do so in the face of the inertial forces it undergoes internally, as well as the
cosmic forces and planetary perturbations it incurs externally? Geocentrism has a much better
explanation. The sidereal rate can stay exactly as it is due to the tremendous momentum that
a massive rotating universe will produce. Like a giant  flywheel,  the universe keeps  turning at
the same rate year after year, and nothing is able to slow it down. (Later we will address the
claims that the Earth has slowed its rotation). As for Newton and Einstein, geocentrism can use
both a rotating Earth in a fixed universe or a fixed Earth in a rotating universe, if desired, since
all we need to do is invert the equations, as Einstein himself did.


I think that infinite number of lines can't pass through a single point, so this axiom (infinite number of lines can pass through a point) is not correct as far as i am concerned.

« on: January 22, 2019, 06:55:09 AM »
The earth is not flat, however, she is motionless, no doubts about that.

Try to remember this :

Flat earth is NASA's & heliocentrists' best weapon against those who expose their lies. U do know this flat earth thing was a social internet experiment set up by Harvard uni.. They wanted to see how many people they could influence into a ridiculous argument like lemmings even knowing how silly the statement was.. So they took votes to decide what to use as statement and came up with flat earth because once man had believed this to be true, but hundreds of years of science proof has shown otherwise so if they could persuade a percentage of the view total on their site they would deem it failure or success and they were shocked at how successful it was, not only on their site but being picked up and adopted across the whole internet.. Proving to them some psychological analysis about the lemmings type mind of mass convincing.. Which has its own snazzy terms I can't remember right now.. So, flat earth stupidity took off as a psychological experiment and ended up as a perfect tool (instrument) for derailing "geocentric vs heliocentric" debate into "heliocentric theory vs flat-earth stupidity" debate. So flat-earth is a psyop (and i proved it beyond any doubt by providing numerous arguments in my videos which i have uploaded on this channel in the last 2 years), and NASA and Harvard specialists achieved their goal by managing to catch much more flies (flat-earthers) in their sinister trap that they had even expected at the beginning of their perfidious experiment.

All you have to do is to find the true answers to the following questions :

*1.* Does anybody have a link to a rocket launch with rear facing cameras, where the rocket continues out into space eventually showing the whole globe????
*2.* How about live streaming of the earth by using camera mounted on a geostationary satellite?
---The alleged speed of a geostationary satellite is about 10 000 km/h (height = 37 000 km)
---The alleged speed of ISS is about 28 000 km/h (height = 400 km)
So, from the perspective of a geostationary satellite (which allegedly stays aloft above the earth at the height of about 37 000 km) we would be able to watch how ISS is orbiting the earth (accomplishing one full cycle every hour or so). Can you direct me towards such a video (in which i can see the earth and ISS orbiting the earth) taken by camera mounted on a geostationary satellite?
Btw, can you explain to me how ISS is able (by which mechanics) to gain it's orbital speed (28 000 km/h)?

*3.* Anyone who speaks the truth is labeled a conspiracy theorist. This is an old NAZI tactic called: "gaslighting".
How Can NASA Recover From This *EVER* - SPECIAL :

Everybody share this on every outlet you can!

*4.* Feel free to explain away the conundrum pointed out in the last part of this video :

*5.* They are all in bed together, they all do business together :

Flat Earth Debate / ANGULAR MOMENTUM
« on: December 22, 2018, 09:45:35 AM »
If rotational systems shouldn't be considered as inertial systems (given the constant change of the direction of motion) then the earth shouldn't be considered as inertial system, also. Am i right?

The earth is allegedly subdued to more than two different rotational motions :

1. Rotation on it's axis
2. Orbital motion around the sun
3. Galactic orbital motion around the center of the Milky Way. Our whole solar system allegedly orbits around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. We are supposed to be moving at an average velocity of 828,000 km/hr.

The speed of our orbital motion around the sun is not a constant.
The speed of our galactic orbital motion around the center of the Milky Way is not a constant.

And we can never feel acceleration.
Very convincing, isn't it?

Flat Earth Debate / ARISTARCHUS
« on: November 15, 2018, 05:59:17 AM »
Aristarchus again.
    At quarter Moon, exactly half of Moon's face illuminated, Sun-Moon-Earth angle (Moon at apex) must be exactly 90 degrees.
    Measure Sun-Earth-Moon angle (Earth at apex).
    Two angles determine shape of triangle, hence relative length of sides.
    Measurement is hard, since Sun-Earth-Moon angle also close to 90 degrees.
    Aristarchus measured 87 degrees, implying dSun=19 x dMoon.

Qualitative conclusion is correct: Sun bigger than Earth, Earth bigger than Moon. But
    True Sun-Earth-Moon angle at quarter Moon is 87.85 degrees, not 87 degrees.
    Implies dSun=400 x dMoon, hence aSun=400 x aMoon,
    Sun is really much bigger than Earth.
    Note that Aristarchus' methods work regardless of whether Earth goes around the Sun or Sun goes around the Earth.

tg 87 = 19,08113669 * 400 000 km (distance to the moon) = 7 632 454 km
tg 87,85 = 26,63669041 * 400 000 = 10 654 676 km (not 150 000 000 km)

Isn't that so?

Flat Earth Debate / LUNAR THEORY
« on: June 08, 2018, 10:50:56 AM »
Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler refined the Ptolemaic lunar theory, but did not overcome its central defect of giving a poor account of the (mainly monthly) variations in the Moon's distance, apparent diameter and parallax. Their work added to the lunar theory three substantial further discoveries.

 1.   The nodes and the inclination of the lunar orbital plane both appear to librate, with a monthly (according to Tycho) or semi-annual period (according to Kepler).
 2.   The lunar longitude has a twice-monthly Variation, by which the Moon moves faster than expected at new and full moon, and slower than expected at the quarters.
 3.   There is also an annual effect, by which the lunar motion slows down a little in January and speeds up a little in July: the annual equation.

The refinements of Brahe and Kepler were recognized by their immediate successors as improvements, but their seventeenth-century successors tried numerous alternative geometrical configurations for the lunar motions to improve matters further. A notable success was achieved by Jeremiah Horrocks, who proposed a scheme involving an approximate 6 monthly libration in the position of the lunar apogee and also in the size of the elliptical eccentricity. This scheme had the great merit of giving a more realistic description of the changes in distance, diameter and parallax of the Moon.

The Variation, discovered by Tycho Brahe, is a speeding-up of the Moon as it approaches new-moon and full-moon, and a slowing-down as it approaches first and last quarter. Its gravitational explanation with a quantitative estimate was first given by Newton. Its principal term is + 2370 ″ sin ⁡ ( 2 D ) {\displaystyle +2370''\sin(2D)} +2370''\sin(2D) .

READ MORE :,_Johannes_Kepler,_and_Jeremiah_Horrocks

Now, if i asked HC guys to tell us what exact HC mechanism is responsible for the variation of the moon i am almost sure that the same explanation (for the differences in the length of the apparent solar days) is going to be offered to us as one of the main reasons which lay behind moon's monthly variations (discovered by Tycho Brahe).

Alpha2Omega's HC explanation for the differences in the length of the apparent solar days :

Each of the curves represents minutes between local solar noon and apparent solar noon as a function of day of year. If you've taken any calculus at all, you should recall that the slope of each line is the rate of change, or the difference between them in minutes per day. Since the length of the mean solar day is a constant, differences are due to changes in the length of the apparent solar day, which are due to variations in the sun't apparent eastward motion against the fixed stars.

Note that the red dash-dot line is steepest where it crosses the zero line at both equinoxes, and steepest in the opposite direction at both solstices. That means that the difference in length of the apparent solar day from the length of the mean solar day due to obliquity of the ecliptic (tilt of earth's axis) is greatest at those moments.

But, why? If we presume for simplicity that the earth's orbit around the sun were perfectly circular, the sun would appear to move eastward around the ecliptic at a constant rate of 360° per tropical year (365.2422 days), or 0.9856°/day. Again, for the sake of simplicity, let's call that 1°/day. Since the ecliptic is tilted with respect to the equator, however, the rate of change in the sun's right ascension is not constant; that is, the sun's meridian does not progress eastward around the equator at the same rate through the year. At an equinox, the path of the ecliptic is tilted 23.5° with respect to the equator - northward at the March equinox and southward at the September equinox. It is parallel to the equator, but displaced from it by 23.5°, at the solstices.

At an equinox, only part of that 1°/day motion along the ecliptic, 1°/day cos(23.5°), is change in RA. The rest, 1°/day sin(23.5°), is in declination, which does not affect meridian crossing time. So there is only a 0.9171°/day eastward movement of the sun's meridian at an equinox. During a solstice, the entire 1°/day motion along the ecliptic is in RA since declination is not changing at that moment, but 23.5° from the celestial equator, the meridians of RA are closer together by, again, a factor of cos(23.5°), so the change in RA is 1°/cos(23.5°). At a solstice, the sun's meridian moves eastward at 1.0944°/day.

Since the eastward motion of the sun's meridian is in the direction as the earth's spin, it takes longer for the earth to "catch up" with the sun when it's moving eastward faster, and less time when it's moving eastward more slowly, so the sun appears to move more slowly across the sky at the solstices (because it's meridian is moving eastward more briskly) than at the equinoxes.


Am i right regarding the claim that Alpha's HC explanation for the differences in the length of the apparent solar days will also play a major role in an attempt to assign to it the main reason for Tycho Brahe's monthly variation of the moon, as well?

Flat Earth Debate / LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« on: May 05, 2018, 09:05:58 AM »
While performing his 8,95m long jump Michael Powell spent in the air exactly 1 sec., now let's imagine that Michael Powell attempts such "long jump" after running in counter direction of train's motion which moves at different speeds (3 km/h, 6 km/h, 9 km/h, 18 km/h)...What would be the results of such attempts? I am practically sure that every such long jump would be significantly longer if Michael Powell carried out this kind of an experiment in a counter direction of train's motion :

3 km/h = 83 cm/s ... 36/3 = 12 ... 83cm/12 = 6,91... 83-6,91 = 76 cm
So, if the train were moving 3 km/h Michael Powell would gain additional 76 cm while performing his long jump inside moving train (running in counter direction of it's motion)

If our train would move :
6 km/h = 1,6 m/s ... 36/6 = 6 ... 160 cm/6 = 26,6 cm ...160-26,6 = 133,4 cm
Michael Powell long jump would be 133,4 cm longer

If our train moved :
9 km/h = 2,5 m/s ... 36/9 = 4 ... 250 cm/4 = 62,5 cm ... 250-62,5 = 187,5 cm
Michael Powell long jump would be 187,5 cm longer

If our train was moving at :
18 km/h = 5m/s ... 36/18 = 2 ... 5m/2 = 2,5 m ... 5m-2,5m = 2,5 m
Michael Powell long jump would be 2,5m longer

If our train moved :
36km/h = 10m/s ... 36/36 = 1 ... 10m/1 = 10m ... 10m-10m = 0
Michael Powell long jump would be 0 (ZERO) longer

One youtuber asked me a while ago :

35 minutes ago
3 km/h = 83 cm/s CORRECT
36/3 = 12 CORRECT!
83cm/12 = 6,91 (actually 6.92. To be precise it should be 83.333/12=6.94, but) CORRECT
83-6,91 = 76 cm (76.39) CORRECT

ME: Why are you dividing 36/3? What is 36? What is 3? Why are you dividing 83 by 12?

I responded like this :

- 36 is 36 km/h
- 3 is 3 km/h
- I divide 36/3 36/6 36/9 36/18 in order to get numbers which will tell us how much times Michael Powell (while running in counter direction of trains motion) overpowers train's momentum.
- I divide 83 by 12 160 by 12 to get residual quantity of the total initial momentum of train's motion

Have you noticed what happens after train's speed and Michael Powell's speed became equal? Michael Powell doesn't gain (from this moment on - as the train's speed becomes equal and gets greater than his own speed) any amount of additional gain ground (forward motion)?

Flat Earth Debate / THE DISTANCES (moon/sun)
« on: March 18, 2018, 05:25:10 AM »
They say that the sun has to be at least few million miles away from the earth in order to geometrically fit to what we observe from the earth (by following the sun's path and his astronomical coordinates), that is to say : in order to accommodate to "parallel ray's of the sun" paradigm. Well, if the moon is allegedly 400 times closer to the earth ("only" 385 000 km away from the earth), how come that the moon also perfectly (in the same way as the sun does) geometrically corresponds to what we observe from the earth (when following the moon's path and her astronomical coordinates), although the moon is allegedly less than one quarter of a million miles away from the earth???

Flat Earth Debate / VERY SIMPLE QUESTION for HC believers!!!
« on: February 26, 2018, 07:19:12 AM »
What is the speed at which the universe is (allegedly) expanding?

Flat Earth Debate / INERTIA
« on: August 13, 2017, 04:29:22 AM »
Imagine the balloon which is hovering somewhere above 80 degr. N latitude.

Now, the wind which blows towards the west (in an opposite direction of earth's alleged rotation) starts to carry the balloon 300 km/h westward.

This is how our balloon keeps it's fixed position in absolute space (within spinning earth scenario), that is to say : the earth rotates (bellow the fixed position of the balloon) towards east, and the balloon stays above fixed point in absolute space - due to westward wind which counteracts eastward motion of the earth with respect to some fixed point in space with which our balloon is perfectly aligned.

As the earth turns and our balloon is being carried away (towards west) by westward wind which blows 300 km/h and counteracts inertia impact on the balloon due to earth's rotation which alleged speed is also 300 km/h (along 80 degr. N latitude), OUR BALLOON IS LOSING THE LAST BIT OF IT'S INITIAL INERTIA, AND EVENTUALLY OUR BALLOON WILL LOSE ALL OF IT'S INITIAL EASTWARD MOMENTUM.

Now, suppose that the wind all of a sudden stops.

What is going to happen with our balloon within spinning earth scenario?

We can assume two solutions :

1. The balloon is going to INSTANTLY restore it's initial inertia.
2. The balloon is going to experience INSTANT blow of 250 km/h fast EASTWARD wind due to the rotation of earth's atmosphere.

1st solution is not possible because the air is a gas.
2nd solution is theoretically possible, but no one has ever experienced or noticed such a strange phenomena.
Let's put it this way :


Atmosphere = the canal with perfectly still water

The wind = boat propeller

The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)

The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west

After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference and with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space, also).

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, there will be no need for restoration of anything (non-pre-existing initial inertia).

The consequence / the effect = the boat will simply rest at the calm water of the canal with no kind of perturbation/disturbance/commotion.



Atmosphere = quick flowing river

The wind = boat propeller

The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)

The river flows 30 knots per hour towards east

The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west

After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference), although with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space the boat didn't move at all.

While boat propeller runs, it's work counteracts inertial impact of river's flow (towards east) on a boat, that is to say : boat propeller's work cancels out boat's initial inertia (due to the river's flow) and the boat stays at the same spatial position all the time.

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, the river's flow is going to restore initial inertia of the boat.

The consequence / the effect = As soon the wind stops (as soon the boat propeller ceases to spin) the strength of river's flow is going to exert it's force on the boat in eastward direction, and almost instantly restore boat's lost initial inertia by abruptly putting the boat in eastward motion.


Let's look it from this perspective :

An airplane flies in counter direction of earth's rotation. An airplane's speed is equal to the rotational speed of the earth. So, by flying (in counter direction) at the speed which is equal to the rotational speed of the earth, our airplane has canceled out INITIAL INERTIA which he had (before he took off) due to the alleged rotation of the earth. Now, let's assume that our plane turns to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), and now his direction of flight is perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation.

What is going to happen?

If the air behaved like a water (as it was described in my last "invisible" post), which presumes INSTANT RESTITUTION/REGAINING of already completely lost INITIAL INERTIA, then we would have to feel an effect of enormously strong abrupt instant sideways blow which would tend to carry our plane in a direction of earth's rotation.

If the air behaved like a gas, not like a water (which presumes gradual restoration of lost INITIAL INERTIA), then we would have to be able to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below us from our left side to the right side of our plane (if we turned to the right), or from the right to the left (if we turned to the left)...

So, what we can conclude from all this is this :

If the air behaved like water any flight towards west (in counter direction of earth's supposed spin) would encounter big difficulties, atmosphere would act like running water which tends to carry the plane in counter direction of it's heading way, and any flight towards east would be peace of cake because atmosphere-stream would carry the plane by it's own power (we would hardly need to rely upon any significant force exerted by plane's engines). So, "inertia" would be nullified while flying towards west and we would need double force of plane's engines to overcome strength of atmospheric forces which act in counter direction of the direction of our flight, however if we were to flying towards east we would fly with double speed by using the same amount of fuel.

On the other hand if an airplane behaved like a gas (an air is a gas) then we would very quickly lose any initial inertia when flying towards west, and the final result would be flying towards west with double speed (speed of an airplane + speed of earth's spin), however, flying towards east would be mission impossible because an airplane would soon lose all of it's initial inertia (no matter in which direction we fly - due to the property of air), again, and the final result would be an incapability of any commercial plane to keep up with the rotational speed of the rigid earth which would be significantly greater than average speed of any commercial aircraft (especially at the equator)...

Flat Earth Debate / POLARIS
« on: August 08, 2017, 02:15:13 AM »
Wiki quote 1 :

Due to the precession of Earth's rotational axis, Thuban was the naked-eye star closest to the north pole from 3942 BC, when it moved farther north than Theta Boötis, until 1793 BC, when it was superseded by Kappa Draconis. It was closest to the pole in 2830 BC, when it was less than ten arc-minutes away from the pole.[14] It remained within one degree of true north for nearly 200 years afterwards, and even 900 years after its closest approach, was just five degrees off the pole. Thuban was considered the pole star until about 1900 BC, when the much brighter Beta Ursae Minoris (Kochab) began to approach the pole as well.

Having gradually drifted away from the pole over the last 4,800 years, Thuban is now seen in the night sky at a declination of 64° 20' 45.6", RA 14h 04m 33.58s. After moving nearly 47 degrees off the pole by 10000 AD, Thuban will gradually move back toward the north celestial pole. In 20346 AD, it will again be the pole star, that year reaching a maximum declination of 88° 43' 17.3", RA 19h 08m 54.17s.

Wiki quote 2 :

Euclid (circa 300 B.C.) said in his Phainomena:

A star is visible between the Bears (Ursa Major and Ursa Minor), not changing its place, but always revolving upon itself;

Hipparchos (circa 160-120 B.C.), that the pole was "in a vacant spot forming a quadrangle with three other stars," both of these calling this (Greek) Polos, the (Latin) Polus of Lucan (39-65A.D.), Ovid (43 B.C.-18?A.D.), and other classical Latins; and Euphratean observers had called their pole-star Pul, or Bil. But, although other astronomical writers used these words for some individual star, there is no certainty as to which was intended, for it should be remembered that during many millenniums the polar point has gradually been approaching our pole-star, which 2000 years ago was far removed from it,— in Hipparchos' (circa 160-120 B.C.) time 12°24' away according to his own statement quoted by Marinus of Tyre and cited by the second-century Greek astronomer Ptolemy. Miss Clerke writes as to this:

{p.454} "The entire millennium before the Christian era may count for an interregnum as regards Pole-stars. Alpha (a) Draco (Thuban) had ceased to exercise that office; Alruccabah (Polaris) had not yet assumed it."

Kochab (the beta, ß, star of Ursa Minor), and kappa (?) of Draco, at different times in that epoch, may have been considered as this pole-star, the last a 4th-magnitude about 10° distant from the true pole; although the 5th-magnitude b, 4° away in Alexandrian-Greek astronomer Eratosthenes' (276?-196 B.C.) day, perhaps was intended. And this is not unlikely, as this inconspicuous object, for some reason, was sufficiently noteworthy among the Chinese to bear the title How Kung, the Empress. The (Greek) aei phanes, "ever visible," of the 5th-century Stobaeus may have referred to our Polaris, then about 7° distant from the pole.

The fact that the Polaris of his day did not exactly mark the pole was noted by Pytheas, the Greek astronomer and navigator of Massilia, the modern Marseilles, about 320 B.C.; and till this discovery the belief was prevalent that the heavenly pole was absolutely fixed.

---Let's repeat this excerpt from above quotes :

Euclid (circa 300 B.C.) said in his Phainomena:

A star is visible between the Bears (Ursa Major and Ursa Minor), not changing its place, but always revolving upon itself

FIRST QUESTION : What would be the name of the star BETWEEN the Bears?

SECOND QUESTION : How much the earth have been tilted in the moment when Thuban was our Northern Star or when Kochab was our Northern Star, or when some star between Bears was our Northern Star?

Flat Earth Debate / ANALEMA PROBLEM
« on: July 10, 2017, 09:49:05 AM »
In the picture below we can see two designated paths of the sun across the sky during both solstices above Athens - Greece :

In 8 am the sun comes earlier to the local meridian at winter solstice, but if our reference point would be 2 pm, then we could say that the sun comes later to the local meridian at winter solstice.

In 8 am the sun comes later to the local meridian at summer solstice, but if our reference point would be 2 pm, then we could say that the sun comes earlier to the local meridian at summer solstice.

All in all, the question is this : how can the sun make so much longer path in the sky (apparent or real, doesn't matter) within same period of time (between 8 am and 2 pm) during summer solstice with respect to winter solstice???

At the edge of the Arctic circle there are many occasions in December (and even in June) when we can observe the moon (and measure the speed of it's motion) throughout substantial part of the day. There are even occasions when the moon at the edge of the Arctic circle doesn't set at all (throughout the day).

For example in a few days (9th June) the moon is going to rise above Fairbanks-Alaska (64,5 degr. N) at 23 h 38 min., and the moon is going to be visible above Fairbanks continually for more than 17 hours (the moon sets at 5 h 24 min. PM next day : 10th June)...

All we have to do is to measure the speed of the FULL moon above Fairbanks in these two periods of the day :

-- 5 minutes around midnight
-- 5 minutes around Noon the next day

If there is no substantial difference in the speed of the FULL moon in these periods the earth is at rest (there is no rotation of the earth)!!!

The thing is very simple :

HC maniacs claim that the moon travels in earth's orbit in direction WEST-EAST (which is an opposite direction of it's "apparent" motion in the sky !?!?!?).

The speed of moon's motion (according to HC maniacs) is about 3600 km/h.

Now, our measuring of the speed of the FULL moon around midnight will show SUBSTANTIAL difference in comparison with the speed of the FULL moon around Noon the next day IF THE EARTH ROTATES on it's axis.

-- 5 minutes around midnight (when the earth allegedly rotates in the same direction with respect to the moon's alleged orbital WEST-EAST motion) the "apparent" speed of the moon will be :

3600 km/h (speed of the moon) - 800 km/h (rotational speed of the earth at 64,5 degr. N) = 2800 km/h

- 5 minutes around Noon the next day (when the earth allegedly rotates in the counter direction of the moon's alleged orbital WEST-EAST motion) the "apparent" speed of the moon will be :

3600 km/h (speed of the moon) + 800 km/h (rotational speed of the earth at 64,5 degr. N) = 4400 km/h


Around the midnight the moon would apparently move MUCH FASTER towards WEST since the apparent speed of it's "real" EASTWARD motion would be SUBSTANTIALLY slower (in relation to the result of measurement which would be carried out around Noon).

Around Noon the moon would apparently move MUCH SLOWER towards WEST since the apparent speed of it's "real" EASTWARD motion would be SUBSTANTIALLY faster (in relation to the result of measurement which would be carried out around midnight previous day).

Let me see any kind of a sane attempt of refutation of this argument...

IN ADDITION (just a reminder) :

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer

If the earth is at rest, can she still be round? If yes then why, if no then why?

The earth is motionless, there isn't the slightest doubt about that, now since we know for the fact that the earth is at rest, round-earth hypothesis isn't sustainable any more for many reasons.

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."

In a short paper it is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts of three centuries, all trying to establish incontrovertibly the veracity of Galileo's legendary "Eppur Si muove!". Those interested in particulars will find them sprinkled throughout the extensive literature dealing with the issues involved.

These are quotes about one other experiment (Michelson-Morley experiment) that was performed 10 years after famous Airy's failure experiment (with the same results):

But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:

“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge” (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).

Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert Michelson said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125).

Arthur Eddington said the same about MMX: “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” (The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.).

Historian Bernard Jaffe said: “The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Jaffe’s philosophical barrier was then revealed when he concluded: “This, of course, was preposterous.” (Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76.).

As "preposterous" as the measurements of Arago, Trouton and Noble, Airy, Thorndyke and Kennedy, Theodore de Coudres and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.

“If Michelson-Morley is wrong (IF AETHER EXISTS), then Relativity is wrong.” (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107.).

ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT admitted 160 years ago :

“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don't rush into the wasps' nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I don't feel the courage.”

“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (ALBERT A. MICHELSON), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”

-- If the earth is the center of the universe then the most plausible philosophical assumption is that the earth is the largest object in the universe. But it is not just philosophical assumption, we can also prove this assumption with a simple experiment like this : This simple experiment not only proves that the earth is at rest, it also proves that the sun is very close.

-- Now that we know that the sun is very close to the earth, we can pretty accurate estimate sun's dimensions. So, if the sun is so small (few dozens km in diameter) how can you illuminate SO BIG - ROUND earth in adequate proportions with such a small sun? Geometrically impossible. Even if you bring the sun "ONLY" 100 times closer to the earth (than the official theory claims to be the true distance to the sun), you instantly lose PARALLEL SUN RAYS heliocentric "holy grail" hypothesis. Once, you lost this PARALLEL SUN RAYS EXCUSE, round earth geometry falls to pieces.

-- If the earth is stationary first DIRECT consequence of this truth is an annihilation of the TILT OF THE EARTH hypothesis. As soon as you lost this another heliocentric "holly grail", round earth geometry falls to pieces once again because there is no way how you can account for sun's DAILY UP & DOWN MOTION (as we know it) using such GEOCETRIC-ROUND earth model.

-- It seems that the sun travels in a straight line (at least we see it's trajectory as a straight line). That fact is one ancient argument in favor of the flatness of the earth. I never saw valid refutation of this argument, so although this argument is ancient it is still sound argument in favor of the flat earth hypothesis.

-- If the proportions of the universe remained in the form (size) which is recognized by today's science what would be A DAILY orbital speed of a distant galaxy? Here is the answer :

I have heard EVERY argument that a ball earth proponent can come up with and it still doesn't tell me why out of the hundreds of thousands of satellites, we see none. why nasa, in at least TWO separate NASA MADE videos state that they can go NO HIGHER THAN LOWER EARTH ORBIT when they claim to be ON MOTHERFUCKING MARS!?!?!?!?!

A) If the earth is stationary round-earth geometry falls to pieces!
B) There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space!
Now, you have to ask yourself this : What is more likely :
C) There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space because the earth is ROUND (although stationary)?
D) There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space because the earth is FLAT and stationary?
-If the earth is round, it wouldn't matter if the earth were stationary, would it? If the earth were round (although stationary) there would be no problem (for NASA or anyone else) to present to us at least ONE SINGLE (if not thousands) AUTHENTIC picture of the earth from space!
-On the other hand, if the earth is flat, there would be a huge problem to show us ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space!

THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EARTH IS ROUND OR FLAT. There are some serious astronomical reasons which compel us to think that the earth is round, but here are some very serious reasons which compel us NOT to believe that the earth is round, either:

If we want to compute the orbital speed of the sun within geocentric ROUND earth model, we have to surmount this huge obstacle :


Now, even if the sun were only 3 000 000 miles (as Copernicus thought), then the length of sun's orbit would be 31 400 000 km and orbital speed of the sun (since within geocentric ROUND earth model the sun has to complete one full circle around the earth DAILY) would be 1 308 333 km/h. In the same way as we don't feel any motion of the earth (and only on the basis of our senses are able to discard idiotic presumptions about different kinds of earth's motion), our senses (eyes) clearly tell us that the sun is not hurling through space at such incredible speed, as well. If the sun were 3,9 times bigger than earth (supposing that the distance to the sun is only 3 000 000 miles) we should ask this question also : Why would so much bigger sun orbit so much smaller earth? That is why geocentric ROUND earth model doesn't add up!

« on: May 07, 2017, 04:11:42 AM »
I would REALLY like to see ANY kind of sane-meaningful attempt (by anyone) of refutation of the following flat-earth truth :

- ANYWHERE on our earth, if you are facing 90 degrees east, or 270 degrees west. - And fly IN A STRAIGHT LINE in an airplane/ auto pilot for 5 hours. The "N" on the pilots compass will always slowly point towards his back side of the airplane.

- On the other hand, if an airplane strictly follows any latitudinal line, "N" on the pilots GYROCOMPASS will always slowly point towards his front side of the airplane.

- BUT at the EQUATOR on a "ball earth" this pilot could fly auto pilot all the way around the world and stay facing (according to GYROCOMPASS) directly East or west the entire time.

Aviation wouldn't work on a globe (stationary or spinning) :

1.Cavendish experiment is a bullshit :


--- Very simple and irrefutable experiment :
--- Very simple and irrefutable argument :

Inertial frame of reference 1 :
Inertial frame of reference 2 :
Inertial frame of reference 3 :
Inertial frame of reference 4 :


---Explain this away and be more famous than Einstein : (READ PINNED COMMENT BELOW THIS VIDEO !!!)

« on: December 19, 2016, 06:00:59 AM »
If airplane flies 500 miles per hour westbound and the earth turns (above the equator) 1000 miles/h eastbound, then according to the law of INERTIA such airplane wouldn't be able to fly towards WEST AT ALL, since any attempt TO FLY TOWARDS WEST 500 miles/h would actually end up as moving eastbound at the same rate : 500 miles/hour (since 1000 - 500 = 500), that is to say such airplane would proceed TOWARDS EAST against the will of those who tried to direct it westbound :
Mythbusters - Soccer Ball Shot from Truck :


So, you dug your own grave by using your famous tool/ all mighty excuse : INERTIA in order to explain how aviation could work above spinning earth at all....

That is to say : trying to explain how come that an airplane which flies 500 miles/h can reach any eastern destination since the earth rotates twice faster (above the equator), you have to use some excuse, and that excuse is INERTIA.

Well, you can't use that excuse any more, since taking into account INERTIA in the context of the spinning earth idiotic assumption (theory), you have to admit that no westbound flight would be possible due to the impact of the same force which you use for decades to explain how is possible to fly eastwards above the spinning earth.

Flat Earth Debate / FES is a controlled opposition, is it not???
« on: December 06, 2016, 07:32:50 AM »
Hey, fuckers, it's quite impossible that all of you can be so unbelievably stupid, isn't it? That is why this guy is obviously 100 % right (isn't he?) :#t=15m20s

The Flat Earth Society is a controlled opposition group that mixes truth with lies and satire to discredit genuine flat Earth research, a job they have been doing for a long time now. Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our flat Earth. Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports several false flat-Earth arguments and treats the entire subject as a dead-pan joke.

In 1956 a genuine truth-seeker and flat-Earth researcher, Samuel Shenton, had started the IFERS (International Flat Earth Research Society) and was making quite an impact with his publications and interviews, revealing the truth of our flat Earth to the masses. The globalists attempted to ignore the threat posed by Shenton for over a decade before finally creating their competing, farcical controlled opposition FES (Flat Earth Society) which has spent the past 45 years steering all flat-Earth inquiry into the realms of satire and sarcasm.

Ferrari's entire schtick involved approaching the flat Earth subject from every angle EXCEPT the rational and scientific. For example, he published a series of articles including "The Global Fallacy as a Cause of Racial Prejudice," arguing that people in countries at the top of the globe felt superior to those at the bottom, when in fact there was no top or bottom to the world, so, "even if one assumed that the world was spherical, the 'top' and 'bottom' have been arbitrarily selected, resulting in racial discrimination against those in the south. How can the globularists, their hirelings and dupes, seriously claim to believe that all men are created equal when they teach that some men are eternally fated to hang like bats from the bottom of a globe on which other men stand upright? The only solution is a flat Earth!" So instead of presenting measurements or experiments, instead of presenting any proofs or evidence, Ferrari would often simply argue the flat Earth as a serendipitous satirical solution to social problems.

In a famous 1971 CBC interview Ferrari was asked, "how do you explain the fact that the Earth appears round in the pictures taken from space by the astronauts?" Instead of answering and addressing the clear photo-trickery involved, Ferrari replied, "Simple. No doubt you're familiar with Einstein's theory of the curvature of space. If space is curved - and modern physics is based on that assumption - the Earth, from space, would appear circular. It's a simple optical illusion." This convoluted, pandering answer really is no answer at all and serves only to make the listener cock their head and raise an eyebrow.

So, guys, you are a part of controlled opposition, that is the exact reason why you are playing so incredibly stupid (although it's absolutely impossible that so many of you can be so unbelievably stupid), isn't it?

« on: November 19, 2016, 10:12:28 AM »

Here is the story :

Globe is dead, as simple as that! It doesn't mean that we can easily resolve all conundrums that we stumble upon in our quest for the ultimate truth, but we know FOR SURE that the earth is motionless, that is our first anchor point. Our second anchor point is easily provable flatness of all the oceans and the great lakes on this earth. Now, imagine perfectly flat pizza made of let's say aluminium. If we submerge such gigantic PERFECTLY FLAT plate on the surface of some calm lake and if the earth were really spherically shaped the edges of our gigantic plate would be on the level of the lake, while in the same time very large part of our gigantic aluminium pizza would be submerged below the surface of the lake (the center of our gigantic plate would be submerged roughly 30 cm (1 feet) bellow the surface of the lake. Now, try to imagine an opposite scenario : there is (let's say somewhere in Bolivia) one gigantic flat plane, now if the earth were a globe what should happen if we (or someone who dwells above us) start to gradually spill water on the surface of such gigantic flat plane (SalaR de Uyuni)? We would never get (having in mind the FLATNESS of such gigantic PLANE) this result (so evenly spread out and SO SHALLOW water) : .... Why we would never be able to get such a result if the earth were really the globe? Because the gravity would cause collecting the water around the center of our gigantic plane, since the central part of our plane would be closer to the center of the globe. Total amount of water (on the surface of Salar de Uyuni) would have to be much greater in order to cover the whole surface of such FLAT PLANE : but no one would ever be able to produce so evenly spread out (and SO SHALLOW!!!) water across such a large and SO FLAT surface (if the earth were really the globe)!!! --- In due time i would like to make the video on this subject, because shallow water across Salar de Uyuni is one of the best proofs that the earth is flat as a pancake :,_bolivia.jpg ......... God bless you!!!?

Hi, Ace, let me see if you understood my argument... Let me quote myself first :
>>>Why we would never get such a result? Because the gravity would cause collecting the water around the center of our gigantic plane, since the central part of our plane would be closer to the center of the globe. Total amount of water (on the surface of Salar de Uyuni) would have to be much greater in order to cover the whole surface of such FLAT PLANE : but we would never be able to produce so evenly spread out (and SO SHALLOW!!!) water across such a large and SO FLAT surface (if the earth were really the globe)!!!<<<
--- Now, how would you say ("translate" following words) this in another way : "since the central part of our plane would be closer to the center of the globe."??? -- If you had to present this argument to someone else, how would you explain him/her the true significance of this phrase : "being closer to the center of the globe"? Which important fact is hidden behind that phrase???
--- I ask you this, because sometimes people stare in elephant's face, not noticing his trunk...
Ace Mcloud11 hours ago
odiupicku The point is, at any point on the plane, gravity is pulling straight down... Not to a center, like a globe...
but gravity pulls down under your feet, straight down... so the center of the salt flat has the same perfectly downward force as the edge.....

if earth was concave, the middle of salt flat would be deeper, on a globe, the middle would be most shallow?

Ace, you are staring at elephant's face, but you don't see his trunk...How in the world the centre of the flat plane - on the CONVEX earth - can be the most shallow point??? - If you want to straighten CONVEX line on the CONVEX earth you have to pull up every end of that (CONVEX), since the centre of gravity is INSIDE the globe (in the very centre of the globe) every end of that (CONVEX) line (which you have just straightened) is now further away from the centre of gravity because by pulling up each end of that CONVEX line what you actually did is that you have pulled AWAY (each end) from the centre of the, do you see elephant's trunk??? - So "being closer to the centre of the globular earth" means being AT LOWER LEVEL!!!! ----- As for the CONCAVE earth hypothesis, that is only hypothesis and nothing more than hypothesis...You said that on (in fact INSIDE) the CONCAVE earth the central point would be the deepest part of the flat plane... WRONG AGAIN!!! --- Inside the CONCAVE earth the central point would be the most shallow point, because this time when you pull up CONCAVE line each end of that line go TOWARDS "the multiple centres of gravity" since we are INSIDE the CONCAVE earth, but this time the centre of gravity is not in the centre of the CONCAVE earth, the countless number of many centres of gravity would be OUTSIDE the CONCAVE earth (below our feets), and each perpendicular (with respect to the outer edge of the globe) line would point towards one among many (countless) centres of gravity...Isn't it amazing how such simple concept can confuse someone who thinks "shallow"? ...

Flat Earth Debate / How Amunsden knew he was on the south pole?
« on: February 25, 2016, 07:11:40 AM »
I HATE TO DO THIS (since this is not in favor of Flat Earth Theory), BUT I HAVE TO do that no matter what consequences might follow from this :


How did they know?

Appropriate since it's the centennial of Amundsen's arrival...

First, how did Amundsen know he'd reached the south pole? As you describe, the magnetic pole is far away so a magnetic compass wouldn't help. I looked up gyro compass but it doesn't seem to imply it was used to navigate to either pole (doesn't mention being used by Peary, Scott or Amundsen) and it was a fairly new gadget in 1911, by the sound of it. And Scott must have used the same method or trusted that Amundsen's flag was on the right spot.

Second, by what "time zone" (they had been in use for a couple of decades by 1911) did Amundsen run his expedition? New Zealand time? December 14 by his time, but still December 13 by the western hemisphere time zones.

Third, how did these early explorers navigate back out to the coast without getting lost? I'd expect the wind to obscure their footprints, so did they leave sticks in the ice every few miles and watch for them? Are there distinctive landmarks... or is the mountain range they crossed visible at the pole?


In terms of knowing whether you're at the south pole, with 1911 technology, I think the best bet would be looking at the angle of the sun. When you are at the exact South Pole, the sun's height above the horizon doesn't change throughout the day, since you are at the exact axis of rotation (well, there would be tiny motion due to the seasons, but very small). So you could measure the angle of the sun above the horizon several times a day, and when you get the same measure each time, voila!

Using such a technique, Amundsen's team of expert navigators took repeated rounds of measurement, getting a little closer to the pole each time. While there is always uncertainty in any scientific measurement, upon his return, he submitted his data for verification and the conclusion was that he had gotten within half a mile of the actual geographic south pole. Not bad!


On 8 December the Norwegians passed Shackleton's Farthest South record of 88° 23′.[132] As they neared the pole, they looked for any break in the landscape that might indicate another expedition had got there ahead of them. While camped on 12 December they were momentarily alarmed by a black object that appeared on the horizon, but this proved to be their own dogs' droppings off in the distance, magnified by mirage.[133] Next day they camped at 89° 45′ S, 15 nautical miles (28 km) from the pole.[134] On the following day, 14 December 1911, with the concurrence of his comrades Amundsen travelled in front of the sledges, and at around 3 pm the party reached the vicinity of the South Pole.[135] They planted the Norwegian flag and named the polar plateau "King Haakon VII's Plateau".[136] Amundsen later reflected on the irony of his achievement: "Never has a man achieved a goal so diametrically opposed to his wishes. The area around the North Pole—devil take it—had fascinated me since childhood, and now here I was at the South Pole. Could anything be more crazy?"[137]

For the next three days the men worked to fix the exact position of the pole; after the conflicting and disputed claims of Cook and Peary in the north, Amundsen wanted to leave unmistakable markers for Scott.[138] After taking several sextant readings at different times of day, Bjaaland, Wisting and Hassel skied out in different directions to "box" the pole; Amundsen reasoned that at least one of them would cross the exact point.[139] Finally the party pitched a tent, which they called Polheim, as near as possible to the actual pole as they could calculate by their observations. In the tent Amundsen left equipment for Scott, and a letter addressed to King Haakon which he requested Scott to deliver.[139]

Do you remember my ZIGZAG argument? Haven't you heard for my NEW argument against the rotation of the earth? THIS IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIMES AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Enjoy it!!!

P.S. Oh, yes, and try to refute it if you can!!!

« on: May 31, 2015, 05:54:38 AM »



« on: May 25, 2015, 04:37:38 AM »
Heliocentrists claim that the Earth rotates 366,25 times per 365 days, so we are 1 day off, aren't we? We are missing 1,25 day per year, every year!

The truth is that the stars have their own independent motion, and the sun has his own independent motion.

However, within heliocentrism, these both motions depend on the alleged rotation of the Earth.

If the stars rotated around us twice per year, heliocentrists would invent one more Earth's rotation, so that we would have 377,5 rotation per 365 days.

In this case we would be missing 2 days per year, wouldn't we?

So, where is disappeared 1,25 day per year?

Well, it has been quite a while since i visited this forum last time, and now i have to admit it gives me a great pleasure to read private messages like this:

I was looking for some stationary Earth proofs on youtube and came across your "zig-zag" explanation that although looked weird at first sight, after a little bit thinking became so obvious that I felt really bad for not noticing it before by myself.
Next thing I was here on this forum and registered just to say - thank you ... for opening my eyes and giving me (and probably the whole world if they only want to see) proof for something that always felt wrong ...

With hope that my english was not too confusing,
best regards and greetings from Serbia



Now, let's get to the point:


"Turists from Haparanda ( prefer going to Avasaxa, a hill 680 feet above the sea, from which though eight or ten miles south of the arctic circle, they can see the midnight sun for three days. As the voyage drew to a close, and we approached the upper end of the Gulf of Bothnia the twilight had disappeared, and between the setting and rising of the sun hardly one hour elapsed.

Haparanda is in 65 degrees 31 minutes North latitude and 41 miles south of the arctic circle. It is 1 degree 18 minutes farther north than Archangel, and in the same latitude as the most northern part of Iceland. The sun rises on the 21st of June at 12:01 AM, and sets at 11:37 PM.

From the 22nd to the 25th of June the traveler may enjoy the sight of the MIDNIGHT SUN from Avasaxa, a hill six hundred and eighty feet high, and about 45 miles distant." -M Paul B. du Chaillu, "The Land of the Midnight Sun"

MIDNIGHT SUN IN KIRUNA SWEDEN : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">


Cook penetrated as far South as 71 degrees, Weddell in 1893 reached as far as 74 degrees, and Sir James C. Ross in 1841 and 1842 reached the 78th parallel, but I am not aware that any of these navigators have left it on record that the sun was seen at midnight in the south." THOMAS WINSHIP


This is how Antarctic "Midnight Sun" really looks like : ... This illustration has been taken out from the book "The Worst Journey in The World"



Pages: [1] 2