The Truth is in the Stars

Hello Fellow Flat Earther's and Globalists this is my first post on this website (so please) be gentle with me.  I was previously a globalist; but over the last few days I have been expanding the perception of my reality and have come to ascertain the true nature of things.

Over the past few days I have been slowly absorbing the flat earth material and supported hypothesis' surrounding there of, and I have came to a staggering conclusion.  That the universe as we perceive it now is based on a false pretense; and that the truth lies in the stars.

I've found the conjectures pertaining to the stationary alignment of the stars,  (or lack of orbital relation of the earth to the sun to be most prolific evidence) and its congruency with the stars to be staggering.  If the evidence is in fact, factual and not false; this is the driving point that needs to be made in order to ascertain the true relationship of the earth and perceived cosmos.

-= By the way if anyone can site evidence of the stars in stationary relationship to the earth, please post links or material in this forum I would be most interested in reading it =-

The aforementioned evidence has lead me to 3 perceivable realities about the cosmos, globalist pay close attention to this because it especially pertains to you as well.

1.  The Earth is Flat  [  Artificial Construct Conjecture ]
Sometimes things are just what they seem to be, the Earth being flat, is just the purist most simplest conclusion we can make.  Its stationary, the constructs are artificial,  we are sitting on a giant petri-dish that is known life.  This doesn't necessarily mean we are confined to a dome; however we could just be sitting in an artificial platform in space, possibly part of a larger array of artificial platforms; where as are progenitors are seeding or observing life.   (  Your in a giant zoo ). 
Flat Earth Theory does not necessarily break the understanding of physics as we know it; instead we must ascertain whether or not we are part of a larger artificial construct.

2.  The Earth is Still and the Sun are Stationary  [Artificial Moon Construct Conjecture]
Behold in all its glory the merger of two principles, we do infact live on a globe inside an open cosmos, however we are out of the bounds of a natural environment, in other-words we live in an artificial construct and the moon is centrical to its design.

This conjecture would ascertain the reason we see always see the same stars is the fact that both the sun and the earth are stationary (or at the least the earth moves a very negligible distance under a very long duration of time).  The moon would have a greater part to play in this artificial construct, and would be pinnacle to the earth's axis as well as several axis' that  probably are not accepted by mainstream science.  This would take source evidence, and one would have to quandary if the artificial moon's gravity is outside of the natural realm of physics (which would place a greater need for understanding in the physics behind this theory).

I would love to see source work on this theory if anyone has any, this is probably the strongest out of the three, if there is factual evidence to be proven.

3.  The universe revolves around the world [ Ultimate Theologian, Artificial Construct, Perfect Origin]
This Theory conjectures that the world is in the exact center of the universe and is possibly the 0 point origin of the universe itself.  The universe is either entirely artificial, or by perfect accident we are in the exact center of the universe and due to perfect synchronicity, the universe revolves around the world.

Note that when i use artificial in any of these 3 conjectures I simply mean against the natural law of physics as we know it.

I would love to see more source work on the relation to the stars and our world.  I believe this is the absolute key to discerning who, what, and where we are and why.

Hello Fellow Flat Earther's and Globalists this is my first post on this website (so please) be gentle with me.  I was previously a globalist; but over the last few days I have been expanding the perception of my reality and have come to ascertain the true nature of things.

Over the past few days I have been slowly absorbing the flat earth material and supported hypothesis' surrounding there of, and I have came to a staggering conclusion.  That the universe as we perceive it now is based on a false pretense; and that the truth lies in the stars.

I've found the conjectures pertaining to the stationary alignment of the stars,  (or lack of orbital relation of the earth to the sun to be most prolific evidence) and its congruency with the stars to be staggering.  If the evidence is in fact, factual and not false; this is the driving point that needs to be made in order to ascertain the true relationship of the earth and perceived cosmos.

-= By the way if anyone can site evidence of the stars in stationary relationship to the earth, please post links or material in this forum I would be most interested in reading it =-

The aforementioned evidence has lead me to 3 perceivable realities about the cosmos, globalist pay close attention to this because it especially pertains to you as well.

1.  The Earth is Flat  [  Artificial Construct Conjecture ]
Sometimes things are just what they seem to be, the Earth being flat, is just the purist most simplest conclusion we can make.  Its stationary, the constructs are artificial,  we are sitting on a giant petri-dish that is known life.  This doesn't necessarily mean we are confined to a dome; however we could just be sitting in an artificial platform in space, possibly part of a larger array of artificial platforms; where as are progenitors are seeding or observing life.   (  Your in a giant zoo ). 
Flat Earth Theory does not necessarily break the understanding of physics as we know it; instead we must ascertain whether or not we are part of a larger artificial construct.

2.  The Earth is Still and the Sun are Stationary  [Artificial Moon Construct Conjecture]
Behold in all its glory the merger of two principles, we do infact live on a globe inside an open cosmos, however we are out of the bounds of a natural environment, in other-words we live in an artificial construct and the moon is centrical to its design.

This conjecture would ascertain the reason we see always see the same stars is the fact that both the sun and the earth are stationary (or at the least the earth moves a very negligible distance under a very long duration of time).  The moon would have a greater part to play in this artificial construct, and would be pinnacle to the earth's axis as well as several axis' that  probably are not accepted by mainstream science.  This would take source evidence, and one would have to quandary if the artificial moon's gravity is outside of the natural realm of physics (which would place a greater need for understanding in the physics behind this theory).

I would love to see source work on this theory if anyone has any, this is probably the strongest out of the three, if there is factual evidence to be proven.

3.  The universe revolves around the world [ Ultimate Theologian, Artificial Construct, Perfect Origin]
This Theory conjectures that the world is in the exact center of the universe and is possibly the 0 point origin of the universe itself.  The universe is either entirely artificial, or by perfect accident we are in the exact center of the universe and due to perfect synchronicity, the universe revolves around the world.

Note that when i use artificial in any of these 3 conjectures I simply mean against the natural law of physics as we know it.

I would love to see more source work on the relation to the stars and our world.  I believe this is the absolute key to discerning who, what, and where we are and why.

1. If true then explain away:

Star trails, pole star rotation in both, N and S hemispheres, Coriolis effect, Foucault's pendulum, sunsets, sunrise, observation of other planets spinning on an axis,  retrograde motion of other planets in our solar system, our moon being inverted in S hemisphere, satellite imagery,  the equatorial bulge, Impossible map distances, ships that sink below the horizon as they travel away and magnetic poles, and many more

Likewise you are going to have to prove a few things.
How does gravity or equivalent work on Flat earth?
what about atmosphere and weather?
How, Solar eclipses work?
How lunar eclipses work?
how far is direct line from south Africa to Chile, or New Zealand to South Africa? on a flat earth
How is it that we can we observe stars that revolve about the southern cross (S hem looking South) and Polaris(N hem looking North) on FE?
Why can we only observe about half of the stars in the sky from anywhere on earth if it were a flat disk?
This is just an example, there are many more.

2 Is silliness, and physics can prove it.

3 From our perspective, It does look like the universe rotates around us, but by observing other celestial bodies we know that it is very unlikely.
Also, from our point of view we are center of the observable universe, simply because we can only see the same distance each way!

We Live on a globe We simply rotate on an axis and orbit our sun, like the rest of the planets in our solar system.
Like every other solar system in the galaxy, like in every other galaxy in the universe.

To argue here, I hope you have a good deal of scientific knowledge, and a thick skin.

1. If true then explain away:

Star trails, pole star rotation in both, N and S hemispheres, Coriolis effect, Foucault's pendulum, sunsets, sunrise, observation of other planets spinning on an axis,  retrograde motion of other planets in our solar system, our moon being inverted in S hemisphere, satellite imagery,  the equatorial bulge, Impossible map distances, ships that sink below the horizon as they travel away and magnetic poles, and many more

Likewise you are going to have to prove a few things.
How does gravity or equivalent work on Flat earth?
what about atmosphere and weather?
How, Solar eclipses work?
How lunar eclipses work?
how far is direct line from south Africa to Chile, or New Zealand to South Africa? on a flat earth
this is just an example, there are many more.

I know you are still kind of new here, but all of these concerns have been addressed hundreds of times.
If you have a problem with a specific answer to a specific question, you can start a new thread about it or be more specific here.
Jumbling all of your "problems" into one post on one thread won't get you very far.

That being said, celestial gears or aetheric projection may be the solution to many of your concerns.
If you have a problem with the purported solutions to the sunset and sunrise problems, so say.
Other planets are not Earth, and Earth is not a planet.
There is no flat Earth map. Distances are what they are, and confirmed distances should not be in question.
Universal Acceleration replaces gravity.

Quote from: getrealzommb on January 19, 2016, 03:26:24 PM

1. If true then explain away:

Star trails, pole star rotation in both, N and S hemispheres, Coriolis effect, Foucault's pendulum, sunsets, sunrise, observation of other planets spinning on an axis,  retrograde motion of other planets in our solar system, our moon being inverted in S hemisphere, satellite imagery,  the equatorial bulge, Impossible map distances, ships that sink below the horizon as they travel away and magnetic poles, and many more

Likewise you are going to have to prove a few things.
How does gravity or equivalent work on Flat earth?
what about atmosphere and weather?
How, Solar eclipses work?
How lunar eclipses work?
how far is direct line from south Africa to Chile, or New Zealand to South Africa? on a flat earth
this is just an example, there are many more.

I know you are still kind of new here, but all of these concerns have been addressed hundreds of times.
If you have a problem with a specific answer to a specific question, you can start a new thread about it or be more specific here.
Jumbling all of your "problems" into one post on one thread won't get you very far.

That being said, celestial gears or aetheric projection may be the solution to many of your concerns.
If you have a problem with the purported solutions to the sunset and sunrise problems, so say.
Other planets are not Earth, and Earth is not a planet.
There is no flat Earth map. Distances are what they are, and confirmed distances should not be in question.
Universal Acceleration replaces gravity.

"I know you are still kind of new here" wrong I was first here in 2011...... 5 years is hardly new.... 

None have been addressed satisfactorily.
1. aetheric projection. is Science fiction at its finest, and conveniently not able to be tested with science!
2. Celestial gears deserve to be treated to the Occam's razor. prove they exist.
3. "Earth is not a planet" Citation Needed
4. Universal Acceleration is a dog turd. no matter what any FE lot say. Physics says Nope. Sorry Mass can't achieve the speed of light (C) and earth cannot accelerate at 9.8m/s squared for even 10 years before surpassing that figure.
5. Why no Flat Earth map when it should bey way easier than a globe to plot... its basically 1to1? Ever tried Flat earth Trigonometry?

Its all bollocks without the jizz, I'm afraid.

Now for a touch of reality. 
We have believed it to be a planet for centuries. Science theorized we were a planet long ago. Mathematical models work for a globe, spinning on a axis, orbiting the sun and can accurately predict almost all transients off all the planets in our solar system including our own . Space travel and satellite imagery has confirmed as such! 

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on January 19, 2016, 03:58:45 PM

Quote from: getrealzommb on January 19, 2016, 03:26:24 PM

1. If true then explain away:

Star trails, pole star rotation in both, N and S hemispheres, Coriolis effect, Foucault's pendulum, sunsets, sunrise, observation of other planets spinning on an axis,  retrograde motion of other planets in our solar system, our moon being inverted in S hemisphere, satellite imagery,  the equatorial bulge, Impossible map distances, ships that sink below the horizon as they travel away and magnetic poles, and many more

Likewise you are going to have to prove a few things.
How does gravity or equivalent work on Flat earth?
what about atmosphere and weather?
How, Solar eclipses work?
How lunar eclipses work?
how far is direct line from south Africa to Chile, or New Zealand to South Africa? on a flat earth
this is just an example, there are many more.

I know you are still kind of new here, but all of these concerns have been addressed hundreds of times.
If you have a problem with a specific answer to a specific question, you can start a new thread about it or be more specific here.
Jumbling all of your "problems" into one post on one thread won't get you very far.

That being said, celestial gears or aetheric projection may be the solution to many of your concerns.
If you have a problem with the purported solutions to the sunset and sunrise problems, so say.
Other planets are not Earth, and Earth is not a planet.
There is no flat Earth map. Distances are what they are, and confirmed distances should not be in question.
Universal Acceleration replaces gravity.

"I know you are still kind of new here" wrong I was first here in 2011...... 5 years is hardly new.... 

None have been addressed satisfactorily.
1. aetheric projection. is Science fiction at its finest, and conveniently not able to be tested with science!
2. Celestial gears deserve to be treated to the Occam's razor. prove they exist.
3. "Earth is not a planet" Citation Needed
4. Universal Acceleration is a dog turd. no matter what any FE lot say. Physics says Nope. Sorry Mass can't achieve the speed of light (C) and earth cannot accelerate at 9.8m/s squared for even 10 years before surpassing that figure.
5. Why no Flat Earth map when it should bey way easier than a globe to plot... its basically 1to1? Ever tried Flat earth Trigonometry?

Its all bollocks without the jizz, I'm afraid.

Now for a touch of reality. 
We have believed it to be a planet for centuries. Science theorized we were a planet long ago. Mathematical models work for a globe, spinning on a axis, orbiting the sun and can accurately predict almost all transients off all the planets in our solar system including our own . Space travel and satellite imagery has confirmed as such! 

1 Einstein will confirm that an aether must exist, and a fairly large mass traveling through space at ultra-high velocities would most definitely displace this medium to a certain degree.
2 I cannot. The idea would simply fit the theory based on plain observation.
3 Why would the center of consciousness in the universe, that is the only place in the universe where observation is known to take place, be the same as the rest of the universe?
4 When accelerating at relativistic magnitudes toward and close to the speed of light, linear Newtonian physics no longer applies. See : Special Relativity. There are special equations to handle these situations. There is also a model that I've put forth that would even allow the universe to travel faster than light.
5 I'm not a cartographer, and trigonometry works fine on a flat Earth. Especially the trigonometry that confirms the Sun is much, much closer than you roundies seem to think. Though, you people seem to stop liking trigonometry so much then.

The stars are a prove of RET.
1. Star maps work, and they assume the earth is round.
2. The southern cross somehow manages to be south everyone (if you go far enough south it will be north of you, but this is futher than the continents go)
3. No explanation of stars never setting in the southern hemisphere.
4. You always see half of the stars, only explained by RET.

Hello Fellow Flat Earther's and Globalists this is my first post on this website (so please) be gentle with me.  I was previously a globalist; but over the last few days I have been expanding the perception of my reality and have come to ascertain the true nature of things.

Over the past few days I have been slowly absorbing the flat earth material and supported hypothesis' surrounding there of, and I have came to a staggering conclusion.  That the universe as we perceive it now is based on a false pretense; and that the truth lies in the stars.

I've found the conjectures pertaining to the stationary alignment of the stars,  (or lack of orbital relation of the earth to the sun to be most prolific evidence) and its congruency with the stars to be staggering.  If the evidence is in fact, factual and not false; this is the driving point that needs to be made in order to ascertain the true relationship of the earth and perceived cosmos.

-= By the way if anyone can site evidence of the stars in stationary relationship to the earth, please post links or material in this forum I would be most interested in reading it =-

The aforementioned evidence has lead me to 3 perceivable realities about the cosmos, globalist pay close attention to this because it especially pertains to you as well.

1.  The Earth is Flat  [  Artificial Construct Conjecture ]
Sometimes things are just what they seem to be, the Earth being flat, is just the purist most simplest conclusion we can make.  Its stationary, the constructs are artificial,  we are sitting on a giant petri-dish that is known life.  This doesn't necessarily mean we are confined to a dome; however we could just be sitting in an artificial platform in space, possibly part of a larger array of artificial platforms; where as are progenitors are seeding or observing life.   (  Your in a giant zoo ). 
Flat Earth Theory does not necessarily break the understanding of physics as we know it; instead we must ascertain whether or not we are part of a larger artificial construct.

2.  The Earth is Still and the Sun are Stationary  [Artificial Moon Construct Conjecture]
Behold in all its glory the merger of two principles, we do infact live on a globe inside an open cosmos, however we are out of the bounds of a natural environment, in other-words we live in an artificial construct and the moon is centrical to its design.

This conjecture would ascertain the reason we see always see the same stars is the fact that both the sun and the earth are stationary (or at the least the earth moves a very negligible distance under a very long duration of time).  The moon would have a greater part to play in this artificial construct, and would be pinnacle to the earth's axis as well as several axis' that  probably are not accepted by mainstream science.  This would take source evidence, and one would have to quandary if the artificial moon's gravity is outside of the natural realm of physics (which would place a greater need for understanding in the physics behind this theory).

I would love to see source work on this theory if anyone has any, this is probably the strongest out of the three, if there is factual evidence to be proven.

3.  The universe revolves around the world [ Ultimate Theologian, Artificial Construct, Perfect Origin]
This Theory conjectures that the world is in the exact center of the universe and is possibly the 0 point origin of the universe itself.  The universe is either entirely artificial, or by perfect accident we are in the exact center of the universe and due to perfect synchronicity, the universe revolves around the world.

Note that when i use artificial in any of these 3 conjectures I simply mean against the natural law of physics as we know it.

I would love to see more source work on the relation to the stars and our world.  I believe this is the absolute key to discerning who, what, and where we are and why.

Well, someone took the red pill
Also, in top down order of grammar I corrected: "Purist" is a person. I think you meant "Purest" which would mean most pure. Its is a word for possession, meaning something belonging to it. I think you meant it's, which means "It is." Oh, yeah, "Your" is also for possession. Unless it's your world, in the which case, it belongs to you, do what you want, you probably meant "You're" which means you are. Plus, "i" needed to be capitalized. Keep in mind the new meaning of the argument with the incorrect words in place and the meaning of the incorrect words in place, and notice: Grammar changes the meaning of an argument.

Well, someone took the red pill
Also, in top down order of grammar I corrected: "Purist" is a person. I think you meant "Purest" which would mean most pure. Its is a word for possession, meaning something belonging to it. I think you meant it's, which means "It is." Oh, yeah, "Your" is also for possession. Unless it's your world, in the which case, it belongs to you, do what you want, you probably meant "You're" which means you are. Plus, "i" needed to be capitalized. Keep in mind the new meaning of the argument with the incorrect words in place and the meaning of the incorrect words in place, and notice: Grammar changes the meaning of an argument.

This isn't a grammar forum or a grammar thread. This isn't a spelling forum or a spelling thread. You make yourself look like you have nothing better to discuss. If you couldn't understand what he meant, I think that may be your own problem.

Quote from: getrealzommb on January 19, 2016, 06:06:42 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on January 19, 2016, 03:58:45 PM

Quote from: getrealzommb on January 19, 2016, 03:26:24 PM

1. If true then explain away:

Star trails, pole star rotation in both, N and S hemispheres, Coriolis effect, Foucault's pendulum, sunsets, sunrise, observation of other planets spinning on an axis,  retrograde motion of other planets in our solar system, our moon being inverted in S hemisphere, satellite imagery,  the equatorial bulge, Impossible map distances, ships that sink below the horizon as they travel away and magnetic poles, and many more

Likewise you are going to have to prove a few things.
How does gravity or equivalent work on Flat earth?
what about atmosphere and weather?
How, Solar eclipses work?
How lunar eclipses work?
how far is direct line from south Africa to Chile, or New Zealand to South Africa? on a flat earth
this is just an example, there are many more.

I know you are still kind of new here, but all of these concerns have been addressed hundreds of times.
If you have a problem with a specific answer to a specific question, you can start a new thread about it or be more specific here.
Jumbling all of your "problems" into one post on one thread won't get you very far.

That being said, celestial gears or aetheric projection may be the solution to many of your concerns.
If you have a problem with the purported solutions to the sunset and sunrise problems, so say.
Other planets are not Earth, and Earth is not a planet.
There is no flat Earth map. Distances are what they are, and confirmed distances should not be in question.
Universal Acceleration replaces gravity.

"I know you are still kind of new here" wrong I was first here in 2011...... 5 years is hardly new.... 

None have been addressed satisfactorily.
1. aetheric projection. is Science fiction at its finest, and conveniently not able to be tested with science!
2. Celestial gears deserve to be treated to the Occam's razor. prove they exist.
3. "Earth is not a planet" Citation Needed
4. Universal Acceleration is a dog turd. no matter what any FE lot say. Physics says Nope. Sorry Mass can't achieve the speed of light (C) and earth cannot accelerate at 9.8m/s squared for even 10 years before surpassing that figure.
5. Why no Flat Earth map when it should bey way easier than a globe to plot... its basically 1to1? Ever tried Flat earth Trigonometry?

Its all bollocks without the jizz, I'm afraid.

Now for a touch of reality. 
We have believed it to be a planet for centuries. Science theorized we were a planet long ago. Mathematical models work for a globe, spinning on a axis, orbiting the sun and can accurately predict almost all transients off all the planets in our solar system including our own . Space travel and satellite imagery has confirmed as such! 

1 Einstein will confirm that an aether must exist, and a fairly large mass traveling through space at ultra-high velocities would most definitely displace this medium to a certain degree.
2 I cannot. The idea would simply fit the theory based on plain observation.
3 Why would the center of consciousness in the universe, that is the only place in the universe where observation is known to take place, be the same as the rest of the universe?
4 When accelerating at relativistic magnitudes toward and close to the speed of light, linear Newtonian physics no longer applies. See : Special Relativity. There are special equations to handle these situations. There is also a model that I've put forth that would even allow the universe to travel faster than light.
5 I'm not a cartographer, and trigonometry works fine on a flat Earth. Especially the trigonometry that confirms the Sun is much, much closer than you roundies seem to think. Though, you people seem to stop liking trigonometry so much then.

1.Einstein dose not agree, He scrapped the idea in favor of special relativity (that you obviously agree with see your point 4)
 #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

2. Is still bullshit, and Occam's razor should be used because a spinning earth is accurate and less complicated than any gears.

3 Why wouldn't it be? Just because we are yet to discover other observers dose not mean they do not exist. in fact odds are in favor that they do.

4 do you understand special relativity? show me the maths that say UA works, I'll prove you wrong.

5 Wait.... No FET supporter over the last say 3 centenary has not had the ability? Id say that makes a FE map an impossibility.

Tis a globe my friend, sorry.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on January 19, 2016, 09:54:19 PM

Quote from: getrealzommb on January 19, 2016, 06:06:42 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on January 19, 2016, 03:58:45 PM

Quote from: getrealzommb on January 19, 2016, 03:26:24 PM

1. If true then explain away:

Star trails, pole star rotation in both, N and S hemispheres, Coriolis effect, Foucault's pendulum, sunsets, sunrise, observation of other planets spinning on an axis,  retrograde motion of other planets in our solar system, our moon being inverted in S hemisphere, satellite imagery,  the equatorial bulge, Impossible map distances, ships that sink below the horizon as they travel away and magnetic poles, and many more

Likewise you are going to have to prove a few things.
How does gravity or equivalent work on Flat earth?
what about atmosphere and weather?
How, Solar eclipses work?
How lunar eclipses work?
how far is direct line from south Africa to Chile, or New Zealand to South Africa? on a flat earth
this is just an example, there are many more.

I know you are still kind of new here, but all of these concerns have been addressed hundreds of times.
If you have a problem with a specific answer to a specific question, you can start a new thread about it or be more specific here.
Jumbling all of your "problems" into one post on one thread won't get you very far.

That being said, celestial gears or aetheric projection may be the solution to many of your concerns.
If you have a problem with the purported solutions to the sunset and sunrise problems, so say.
Other planets are not Earth, and Earth is not a planet.
There is no flat Earth map. Distances are what they are, and confirmed distances should not be in question.
Universal Acceleration replaces gravity.

"I know you are still kind of new here" wrong I was first here in 2011...... 5 years is hardly new.... 

None have been addressed satisfactorily.
1. aetheric projection. is Science fiction at its finest, and conveniently not able to be tested with science!
2. Celestial gears deserve to be treated to the Occam's razor. prove they exist.
3. "Earth is not a planet" Citation Needed
4. Universal Acceleration is a dog turd. no matter what any FE lot say. Physics says Nope. Sorry Mass can't achieve the speed of light (C) and earth cannot accelerate at 9.8m/s squared for even 10 years before surpassing that figure.
5. Why no Flat Earth map when it should bey way easier than a globe to plot... its basically 1to1? Ever tried Flat earth Trigonometry?

Its all bollocks without the jizz, I'm afraid.

Now for a touch of reality. 
We have believed it to be a planet for centuries. Science theorized we were a planet long ago. Mathematical models work for a globe, spinning on a axis, orbiting the sun and can accurately predict almost all transients off all the planets in our solar system including our own . Space travel and satellite imagery has confirmed as such! 

1 Einstein will confirm that an aether must exist, and a fairly large mass traveling through space at ultra-high velocities would most definitely displace this medium to a certain degree.
2 I cannot. The idea would simply fit the theory based on plain observation.
3 Why would the center of consciousness in the universe, that is the only place in the universe where observation is known to take place, be the same as the rest of the universe?
4 When accelerating at relativistic magnitudes toward and close to the speed of light, linear Newtonian physics no longer applies. See : Special Relativity. There are special equations to handle these situations. There is also a model that I've put forth that would even allow the universe to travel faster than light.
5 I'm not a cartographer, and trigonometry works fine on a flat Earth. Especially the trigonometry that confirms the Sun is much, much closer than you roundies seem to think. Though, you people seem to stop liking trigonometry so much then.

1.Einstein dose not agree, He scrapped the idea in favor of special relativity (that you obviously agree with see your point 4)
 #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

2. Is still bullshit, and Occam's razor should be used because a spinning earth is accurate and less complicated than any gears.

3 Why wouldn't it be? Just because we are yet to discover other observers dose not mean they do not exist. in fact odds are in favor that they do.

4 do you understand special relativity? show me the maths that say UA works, I'll prove you wrong.

5 Wait.... No FET supporter over the last say 3 centenary has not had the ability? Id say that makes a FE map an impossibility.

Tis a globe my friend, sorry.

If you are going to be real, there  really has been no question that the earth is a globe.

5. Is the real killer for flat earth. FE's say either there is no flat earth map, or the best they can do is to show a copy of the Unipolar  Azimuthal Equdistant Projection, which is made from the globe.

Welcome to the trenches.

1.Einstein dose not agree, He scrapped the idea in favor of special relativity (that you obviously agree with see your point 4)
 #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

2. Is still bullshit, and Occam's razor should be used because a spinning earth is accurate and less complicated than any gears.

3 Why wouldn't it be? Just because we are yet to discover other observers dose not mean they do not exist. in fact odds are in favor that they do.

4 do you understand special relativity? show me the maths that say UA works, I'll prove you wrong.

5 Wait.... No FET supporter over the last say 3 centenary has not had the ability? Id say that makes a FE map an impossibility.

Tis a globe my friend, sorry.

1 - 1905 : Einstein proposes special relativity. 1920 : Einstein gives this lecture (http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html) and concludes that aether must exist.
2 - That's all you've got?
3 - I agree that they probably are out there somewhere, but until the day a shred of evidence is discovered, my point remains valid.
4 -

The special theory of relativity describes the behavior of objects traveling relative to other objects at speeds approaching that of light in a vacuum. Newtonian mechanics is exactly revealed to be an approximation to reality, valid to great accuracy at lower speeds. As the relevant speeds increase toward the speed of light, acceleration no longer follows classical equations.

As speeds approach that of light, the acceleration produced by a given force decreases, becoming infinitesimally small as light speed is approached; an object with mass can approach this speed asymptotically, but never reach it.

Do you have the math that disproves special relativity? Handling acceleration at relativistic speeds is pretty complicated.
5 - The movement has only exploded pretty recently. Until then, there were only a few people affixed on the problem. As far as I know, there is not a cartographer amongst us. FlatOrange made a projection awhile back, but I really don;t feel like digging it up right now.

Celestial gears are destroyed by constant angular separation of stars over each rotational period.

Celestial gears are destroyed by constant angular separation of stars over each rotational period.

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure I got your point.

Quote from: getrealzommb on January 20, 2016, 01:57:43 PM

1.Einstein dose not agree, He scrapped the idea in favor of special relativity (that you obviously agree with see your point 4)
 #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

2. Is still bullshit, and Occam's razor should be used because a spinning earth is accurate and less complicated than any gears.

3 Why wouldn't it be? Just because we are yet to discover other observers dose not mean they do not exist. in fact odds are in favor that they do.

4 do you understand special relativity? show me the maths that say UA works, I'll prove you wrong.

5 Wait.... No FET supporter over the last say 3 centenary has not had the ability? Id say that makes a FE map an impossibility.

Tis a globe my friend, sorry.

1 - 1905 : Einstein proposes special relativity. 1920 : Einstein gives this lecture (http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html) and concludes that aether must exist.
2 - That's all you've got?
3 -, but until the day a shred of evidence is discovered, my point remains valid.
4 -

Quote

The special theory of relativity describes the behavior of objects traveling relative to other objects at speeds approaching that of light in a vacuum. Newtonian mechanics is exactly revealed to be an approximation to reality, valid to great accuracy at lower speeds. As the relevant speeds increase toward the speed of light, acceleration no longer follows classical equations.

As speeds approach that of light, the acceleration produced by a given force decreases, becoming infinitesimally small as light speed is approached; an object with mass can approach this speed asymptotically, but never reach it.

Do you have the math that disproves special relativity? Handling acceleration at relativistic speeds is pretty complicated.
5 - The movement has only exploded pretty recently. Until then, there were only a few people affixed on the problem. As far as I know, there is not a cartographer amongst us. FlatOrange made a projection awhile back, but I really don;t feel like digging it up right now.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

"Aether theory was dealt another blow when the Galilean transformation and Newtonian dynamics were both modified by Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, giving the mathematics of Lorentzian electrodynamics a new, "non-aether" context.[A 18] Unlike most major shifts in scientific thought, special relativity was adopted by the scientific community remarkably quickly, consistent with Einstein's later comment that the laws of physics described by the Special Theory were "ripe for discovery" in 1905.[B 10] Max Planck's early advocacy of the special theory, along with the elegant formulation given to it by Hermann Minkowski, contributed much to the rapid acceptance of special relativity among working scientists.
Aether in special relativity
"Einstein's use of the word "aether" found little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics"

2. That is all I need for now. I could go into proving gears wrong with observable Angular Separation, or the fact that the southern cross is observed to the south for everyone on earth. South according to the plat earth map  wraps around so can not be south for everyone.

3."I agree that they probably are out there somewhere" means we are probably not different to any other planet, in any other system. Then we have all the other things that don't work in FET. Then we have Physics and maths favouring a globe earth.  Then we have satellite proof of a globe. (And point 5) 
Don't you agree that odds are stacking against your theory?

4. I don't need to prove Special Relativity wrong, its correct. I can however point out how UA is misinterpreting how particles with MASS behave while approaching the speed of light.
These misinterpretations,that I can prove with math, show that all the energy everywhere in the universe could not accelerate a flat earth @ 9.8m/s2 to anywhere near the speed of light. If it could the mass of the FE would become infinite and thus consume all the energy in the universe and the universe would cease to exist. Problematic paradox huh.

kinetic energy K.E. = mv2/2mv2/2, if v is limited to c, then as v approaches c the only way for K.E. to increase is for mass to increase.

p=ymv should be  used for massive particles.

However UA is assuming this:
E^2-(pc)^2=(mc^2)^2  This Equation  is for mass less particles IE light and tachyon (particles that move faster than light)

5. Lets just face facts, there has been plenty of time for someone to come up with a working FE map. It dose not Exist.
take your best map, If  trigonometry works on a flat earth map please be my guest and determine the distance between any 2 points in the southern hemisphere.

2.  The Earth is Still and the Sun are Stationary  [Artificial Moon Construct Conjecture][/b]
Behold in all its glory the merger of two principles, we do infact live on a globe inside an open cosmos, however we are out of the bounds of a natural environment, in other-words we live in an artificial construct and the moon is centrical to its design.

This conjecture would ascertain the reason we see always see the same stars is the fact that both the sun and the earth are stationary (or at the least the earth moves a very negligible distance under a very long duration of time).  The moon would have a greater part to play in this artificial construct, and would be pinnacle to the earth's axis as well as several axis' that  probably are not accepted by mainstream science.  This would take source evidence, and one would have to quandary if the artificial moon's gravity is outside of the natural realm of physics (which would place a greater need for understanding in the physics behind this theory).

How can anyone answer a treatise like that!  In the past I have tried with other posts and after spending much time preparing material, only to be kicked in the teeth with a reply like "That's stupid!" or "You're nuts!" - literally.
I am sorry to be so suspicious, but lately there have been quite a number of threads by "new members" that seem to pose innocent questions, but are nothing more than the bait in a trap.

But, I will try to give my take on a bit of it.

• Just what do you mean by "we see always see the same stars"? 
  The stars we see change during the night appearing to move from east to west.
  But, on any one night we see only about half the total "Celestial Sphere", the other half being hidden by the sun during the day.
  This set of stars we see gradually changes so that after 6 months we see get to those that were hidden.
  
• Then you say "the fact that both the sun and the earth are stationary".  I really don't follow.  Do you mean the earth stationary in space, but rotating or completely stationary?
  If completely stationary how do we get day and night?
  So, I can really give no further comment!

Mind you, to me the simplest model to me seems to be the long accepted Heliocentric Globe model for the solar system.

Some say that model depends on the "magic" of gravity.  Well:
Is gravity any more magic than the other "forces" at a distance - electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear etc?
It is very weak, but the expression for it follows exactly the same form as electrostatic or magnetic forces.

Yes, some will argue that "gravity" is not a "force", true, but to us it certainly appears to and between two massive bodies there appears ample evidence that if causes an attractive force. 

Now there will be enough finicky people out there that will say no, no, no - we must use Einstein's laws!
Sure, but do those people use curved space-time to calculate how long it will take for their dropped apple to hit the dirt, or even to calculate how long for the rock you drop to hit the bottom of a cliff?  (Mind you I'd guess!)

Yes of course, "gravity" doesn't exist as it's simply curved space-time due to the presence of mass - yes, true.

Notwithstanding all this, almost everything in the solar system can be explained with quite good accuracy with Newton's Laws of motion and Newton's Gravitation.

Yes, under some conditions Special or General Relativity does need to be invoked at high velocities (say over 300 km/s) and in the presence of a huge mass - even the presence of the earth cause a very slight time dilation.

5 I'm not a cartographer, and trigonometry works fine on a flat Earth. Especially the trigonometry that confirms the Sun is much, much closer than you roundies seem to think. Though, you people seem to stop liking trigonometry so much then.

Please enter my thread (about the Sun, see my signature) and provide details. If you know the solution, then maybe there is a slight hope for at least ONE SINGLE thing in FE "model".