Moon/Sun Eclipse & Atlantis

Hello, I'm new here and would like to ask 2 topics:

1. How does FET model explain sun & moon eclipse?

2. Many ancient maps (Piris Reis, etc) depicted a very detailed but totally different earth terrain, with a huge continent at the equator called "Terra Australis Incognita" (unknown land of the South), also called "Insula Atlantis (by Plato etc). Those maps were very common before Columbus era, said were circulated and copied for thousand years before.

According to those maps (attached below), seems like those outer "Antarctic Walls" was once at the center/equatorial, like current North Pole in FET model. With mainstraim model, this can be explained by pole shift. Any thoughts or explanations for this matter on FET model?

Thanks in advance.

PS: ancient maps images at https://imageshack.com/i/pn4zVszJj and https://imageshack.com/i/poHwgEnpj. The upload button below redirected to imageshack site but couldn't find how to attach in here.

Hello, I'm new here and would like to ask 2 topics:

1. How does FET model explain sun & moon eclipse?

2. Many ancient maps (Piris Reis, etc) depicted a very detailed but totally different earth terrain, with a huge continent at the equator called "Terra Australis Incognita" (unknown land of the South), also called "Insula Atlantis (by Plato etc). Those maps were very common before Columbus era, said were circulated and copied for thousand years before.

According to those maps (attached below), seems like those outer "Antarctic Walls" was once at the center/equatorial, like current North Pole in FET model. With mainstraim model, this can be explained by pole shift. Any thoughts or explanations for this matter on FET model?

Thanks in advance.

PS: ancient maps images at https://imageshack.com/i/pn4zVszJj and https://imageshack.com/i/poHwgEnpj. The upload button below redirected to imageshack site but couldn't find how to attach in here.

I thank you for seeking truth and reality, not as one me wish it to be, not as others tell you it must be, but as it is. I shall now proceed to answer your questions. I shall also, bye the bye, suggest you peruse the fair wiki on this website to answer some of your questions.

1. Eclipses are caused by the intervention of celestial objects between the Earth and Luna or Sol. You may want to read a bit on Aether, celestial objects and the celestial sphere.

2. One may posit a cataclysm that changed the nature of the Terrestrial Plane. There are many theories including a disruption in the Aetheric Whirlpool that allowed a massive celestial object to drop not to the earth. Other theories include a gigantic earthquake or volcanic eruption due the the interruption of change in tectonic plate movement and subduction at the Ice Wall. These changes could also have allowed oceans/seas to pour into a previously flat but dry area. My own theory is that Atlantis was actually the Mycenaean Civilization that was destroyed by a combination of massive volcanic eruptions coupled with rebounding a rebounding Tsunami wave.

My theory on the above is supported by Stavros Papamarinopoulos of the University of Patras.  Papamarinopoulos theory is that since Plato observations have been proven to be accurate about Athens his observations about Atlantis must therefore also be accurate. As one contemporary writer stated

"Plato either invented uncannily precise details about Mycenaean-era Athens, which was extremely unlikely, or he was passing along truthful information that had been passed down to him orally. Therefore, according to Papamarinopoulos, at least half of the Atlantis story was based in fact. “It has maybe some inaccuracies, some exaggerations, but the core of this information has been proved. To ignore this 50 percent is completely unscientific.”

Hi Sir Richard, many thanks for your prompt reply.

Yes I'm here because of my free will and curiousity. I found a lot of FET arguments are making sense, but still couldn't cope with some basic questions.

1. If eclipses are caused by the intervention of (unknown?) celestial objects between the Earth and Moon or Sun, how can mainstraim science predict the eclipses accurately (by calculating "the movements of Earth, Moon, and Sun" -- as they say)?

2. Yes there are more than 50 theories about Atlantis, but I specifically refer to Piris Reis/Finaeus Map as researched and interpreted by Graham Hancock. Let's forget about the term "Atlantis" and get focus with the map, a large continent in equator called "Terra Australis Incognita".

https://imageshack.com/i/pn4zVszJj

The map shows almost exactly like nowadays maps, except the sea level was different; and the whole formation was in different direction. It's not because of tectonic movement, because the very same "Antarctic" was at the equator. If we take Google Map and shift the direction, we'll find that it's pure identical.

I did it myself years ago:

https://imageshack.com/i/pnJGPMu6j

https://imageshack.com/i/plR4WBk6j

My point is, with FET model where "Terra Australis Incognita" assumed as a circular wall around the earth, there's no way to shift it became a continent in the center, as told by the ancient maps.

Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

PS: how to attach pics on post? I tried below attachment buttons, when I pressed "upload" it went to ImageShack and -- after I uploaded there -- still couldn't attach in here.

Shalom and welcome to the trenches OP.

Shalom and thank you, Luke.

I just posted in your thread regarding top 10 proof, presenting a simple math questioning how can a 3.6K m2 ball moving at 1.1 m/h create gravity. Yep, that's a 1 : 100,000,000 scale of "the Earth spinning the Sun" according to mainstream science. It doesn't add up to me.

But still, objectively, on the contrary, I'm still baffled why mainstraim science can predict eclipses accurately. This simple question could jeopardize the whole FET model. Any thoughts?

Shalom and thank you, Luke.

I just posted in your thread regarding top 10 proof, presenting a simple math questioning how can a 3.6 m2 ball moving at 1.1 m/h create gravity. Yep, that's a 1 : 100,000,000 scale of "the Earth spinning the Sun" according to mainstream science. It doesn't add up to me.

But still, objectively, on the contrary, I'm still baffled why mainstraim science can predict eclipses accurately. This simple question could jeopardize the whole FET model. Any thoughts?

I am not Luke, but your "simple math questioning how can a 3.6 m2 ball moving at 1.1 m/h create gravity. Yep, that's a 1 : 100,000,000 scale of "the Earth spinning the Sun" according to mainstream science." has a very simple answer.


But, before I can go further, what is the size of this "3.6 m2" ball? Do you mean area or what?
And where does 1.1 m/h come into it. Gravity does not depend on velocity!

A 1 : 100,000,000 scale 
of the earth would be 0.1274 m in diameter.
of the sun would be about 13.92 m in diameter.
and they would be about 1,490 m apart. If my quick calculations are not up the creek!

So where does this 3.6 m2 ball come in?

Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?

Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.

Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?

Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.

All objects with mass exert gravity, regardless of shape.  If an object has enough mass, the gravity it exerts will collapse it into a spherical shape because of the pressure from all sides, much like a raindrop due to surface tension.  This rounding is known as hydrostatic equilibrium, and is one of the requirements for a body in the solar system to be considered a planet. 

That's all you need to worry about.  Anything beyond that is way over your head. 

Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?

Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.

No "Robin Givens" here and what does "move (in any speed)" have to do with creating gravity?
Gravitation comes from mass^[1], not movement or even rotation.

And if you regard the gravitational equation as "genius supercomplex equation",
then please don't get involved in GR as a lot of Flat Earthers quite unnecessarily try to do!

[1] Just in case some FE pedant is reading this, energy can also bend space-time causing gravitation.

Quote from: whatisreality on April 13, 2016, 12:58:20 AM

Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?

Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.

All objects with mass exert gravity, regardless of shape.  If an object has enough mass, the gravity it exerts will collapse it into a spherical shape because of the pressure from all sides, much like a raindrop due to surface tension.  This rounding is known as hydrostatic equilibrium, and is one of the requirements for a body in the solar system to be considered a planet. 

That's all you need to worry about.  Anything beyond that is way over your head.

Lol a standard elementary school theory? You really think a theory is a more-than-religion dogmatic fact?

That's all you need to worry about. Tesla's view on this space-time curve is way over your head.

Quote from: whatisreality on April 13, 2016, 12:58:20 AM

Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?

Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.

No "Robin Givens" here and what does "move (in any speed)" have to do with creating gravity?
Gravitation comes from mass^[1], not movement or even rotation.

And if you regard the gravitational equation as "genius supercomplex equation",
then please don't get involved in GR as a lot of Flat Earthers quite unnecessarily try to do!

[1] Just in case some FE pedant is reading this, energy can also bend space-time causing gravitation.

Of course everybody knows about “spacetime curvature due to mass” dogma. Was Einstein telling a fact? Well, not to Tesla. That’s exactly why he said "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality".

Quote from: whatisreality on April 12, 2016, 10:27:36 PM

Shalom and thank you, Luke.

I just posted in your thread regarding top 10 proof, presenting a simple math questioning how can a 3.6 m2 ball moving at 1.1 m/h create gravity. Yep, that's a 1 : 100,000,000 scale of "the Earth spinning the Sun" according to mainstream science. It doesn't add up to me.

But still, objectively, on the contrary, I'm still baffled why mainstraim science can predict eclipses accurately. This simple question could jeopardize the whole FET model. Any thoughts?

I am not Luke, but your "simple math questioning how can a 3.6 m2 ball moving at 1.1 m/h create gravity. Yep, that's a 1 : 100,000,000 scale of "the Earth spinning the Sun" according to mainstream science." has a very simple answer.

Not everything scales in the simple way you suggest.

But, before I can go further, what is the size of this "3.6 m2" ball? Do you mean area or what?
And where does 1.1 m/h come into it. Gravity does not depend on velocity!

A 1 : 100,000,000 scale 
of the earth would be 0.1274 m in diameter.
of the sun would be about 13.92 m in diameter.
and they would be about 1,490 m apart. If my quick calculations are not up the creek!

So where does this 3.6 m2 ball come in?

Try again, Dick Whittington, as the old folk tale went.

He was talking to me but thanks for the math lesson. Not too good at it myself.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 13, 2016, 03:07:28 AM

Quote from: whatisreality on April 13, 2016, 12:58:20 AM

Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?

Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.

No "Robin Givens" here and what does "move (in any speed)" have to do with creating gravity?
Gravitation comes from mass^[1], not movement or even rotation.

And if you regard the gravitational equation as "genius supercomplex equation",
then please don't get involved in GR as a lot of Flat Earthers quite unnecessarily try to do!

[1] Just in case some FE pedant is reading this, energy can also bend space-time causing gravitation.

Of course everybody knows about “spacetime curvature due to mass” dogma. Was Einstein telling a fact? Well, not to Tesla. That’s exactly why he said "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality".

Actually Einstein's theories were developed to explain observed phenomena and saying he did "eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" is a little odd that bit-by-bit his theories are being verified by experiment.

The effects of some such as

• Relativistic increase of mass has been show to be valid well over 50 years ago with the behavior of high energy particle beams - originally in CRT's and X-ray machines.
• This mass increase and the "speed limit" at the velocity of light is just part of the working theory of modern high energy particle accelerators.
• Time dilation and gravitation affects the rate of atomic clocks and was observed first with clocks put in aircraft circumnavigating the earth in opposite directions and now is simply built into the design of the GPS system.
• And we now seemingly have his "gravitation wave" predictions verified. I say "seemingly" because in real science ideas and experiments are not finally accepted until the likelihood of the result being a chance occurrence is virtually zero!
  

If you look at the wider fields of science (outside the bit that impinges on your pet ideas) you will find that most scientists are working on topics of quite practical importance.

Just take you blinkers off and look around at their work in medicine, agriculture and other areas of food production and  so many other related areas.

Quote from: whatisreality on April 13, 2016, 03:40:03 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 13, 2016, 03:07:28 AM

Quote from: whatisreality on April 13, 2016, 12:58:20 AM

Okay, Robin Givens. Give me your genius supercomplex equation that really applies to a simple fact: how does a ball (in any seeable size) move (in any speed) can create gravity?

Ahh yes, the old folk mysticism went too.

No "Robin Givens" here and what does "move (in any speed)" have to do with creating gravity?
Gravitation comes from mass^[1], not movement or even rotation.

And if you regard the gravitational equation as "genius supercomplex equation",
then please don't get involved in GR as a lot of Flat Earthers quite unnecessarily try to do!

[1] Just in case some FE pedant is reading this, energy can also bend space-time causing gravitation.

Of course everybody knows about “spacetime curvature due to mass” dogma. Was Einstein telling a fact? Well, not to Tesla. That’s exactly why he said "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality".

Actually Einstein's theories were developed to explain observed phenomena and saying he did "eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" is a little odd that bit-by-bit his theories are being verified by experiment.

The effects of some such as

• Relativistic increase of mass has been show to be valid well over 50 years ago with the behavior of high energy particle beams - originally in CRT's and X-ray machines.
• This mass increase and the "speed limit" at the velocity of light is just part of the working theory of modern high energy particle accelerators.
• Time dilation and gravitation affects the rate of atomic clocks and was observed first with clocks put in aircraft circumnavigating the earth in opposite directions and now is simply built into the design of the GPS system.
• And we now seemingly have his "gravitation wave" predictions verified. I say "seemingly" because in real science ideas and experiments are not finally accepted until the likelihood of the result being a chance occurrence is virtually zero!
  

If you look at the wider fields of science (outside the bit that impinges on your pet ideas) you will find that most scientists are working on topics of quite practical importance.

Just take you blinkers off and look around at their work in medicine, agriculture and other areas of food production and  so many other related areas.

You really think that Einstein’s Relativity has been proved by observed phenomena? You should learn more about how it was “proved” since the beginning. That’s exactly the context of my previous question:

“show me that a mass can create gravity due to the curvature of spacetime”.

The spacetime curvature mysticism was “proved” in 1919 by a supporter named Eddington by observing sun eclipse to see the curvature of spacetime around big mass of the sun (the very context of the above question).

What Eddington did to prove Einstein was so ridiculous. He threw out over 85% of the data, only less than 15% that supported the theory was published. It only takes one corrupted and derogated data point to prove a theory correct (the very context of the above question).

It’s The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science, to make the theory as “The New Bible” like televangelistic sales pitch. Too naive if you think science "searches nothing but the truth" free from interests of jobs, sales, fame, proud, business, even politics.

I am not interested to discuss GPS “that proves relativity” or any out of context subjects. We all know GPS existence is one of many subjects that have been argued elsewhere in this blog, and it’s not the context here. So many pet opinions “answering the question” with elementary school theories that have nothing to do with the basic question.

I am not interested with other context, no one is interested with your pet opinions anyway. I wouldn’t even ask if you didn’t jump in with out-of-context subjects at the first place.

Never mind now. It’s just a hypothetical question. Because, the true answer is “No, we can’t possibly prove that a mass curves spacetime and create gravity”. It remains as science mysticism.

If you can prove it, spare me, present it to Nobel Committee. There's a Nobel prize waiting for you. No need to explain “The Greatest Proof of Spacetime Curvature on An Object that Creates Gravity” in a blog masturbating your ego with pet imagination that you know more than the others.

GPS is not out of context because it wouldn't work if it were not for GR.

GPS is not out of context because it wouldn't work if it were not for GR.

I quote again the context:

“show me that a mass can create gravity due to the curvature of spacetime”.

You wrote "GPS is not out of context"? Sure...

Atlantis of the Illuminati = Greenland

Atlantis of the Vril Society = Antarctica

The unipolar map is wrong.

If you want answers to all your questions, use the search function here (or google) using my name here and:

bipolar map
GPS aether frame dragging
Allais effect

Black Sun/Shadow Moon:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3440.msg77563#msg77563


Total demolition of GTR/STR:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2715.msg80203#msg80203

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2715.msg80215#msg80215

All links are broken.