The Earth is a comet.

Here is an illustration of how the Earth is lit on the bi-polar map:
https://pin.it/4UWd9MzoM
Facts + facts = discoveries of new facts, everything is interconnected, I formulated a new theory based on other theories linked to the flat earth:
Daylight is not sunlight.
The luminiferous ether has parabolic gradients, the density and pressure of the luminiferous ether layers increases as it approaches the firmament, this explains several facts in the flat earth theory, for example: distance measurements from the Moon made with lasers or waves radio waves give the result of 384,400 km because the laser or radio waves have their speed changed when passing through the dense layers of luminiferous ether.
From this, the question arises "why do the layers of ether have parabolic gradients that increase density as it approaches the firmament?"
The answer to this question lies in the UA, the theory of relativity is false, the earth can continue accelerating infinitely and the UA exceeds the speed limit established by strict relativity. The outer part of the rocket warhead is more pressured by gases as they enter the atmosphere very quickly, while the pressure, and consequently the density, remains lower in the inner part of the warhead. Something similar occurs with the earth, due to friction with the luminiferous ether, the last firmament will have the highest pressure level and the most central parts will have the lowest pressure level, remembering that the ether can pass through matter, not being completely blocked by the firmament, so you can get inside it.
In a similar way to the reentry of rockets, friction with the luminiferous ether generates heat and luminosity, this means that the earth is always completely illuminated, however, light is only able to propagate if there is a medium (luminiferous ether), such as It is already known, the Antimoon that causes lunar eclipses is transparent because it absorbs luminiferous ether, so the light that travels through the ether can pass through it, the Antimoon is in the umbra of the night, in the center of the area of the earth that is dark.
This leads to the conclusion that the darkness of the night occurs because the Antimoon absorbs all the luminiferous ether of the area it covers and prevents the light from the earth's friction with the luminiferous ether from propagating to illuminate the night part of the earth shining through the atmospheric gases.

If Earth is a comet, does that mean it is roughly round and not flat?

As I explained in the other thread, the idea of trying to separate daylight and sunlight doesn't work.
That is because those in daylight, assuming there is no obstruction like a building in which case there are in the shade, can see the sun.

Fantasy + rejection of reality = delusional BS.

Here is an illustration of how the Earth is lit

Which doesn’t explain why I can view Venus and the phases of Venus.  And why gravitational acceleration differs on Earth in relationship to changes in Earth’s density.  And doesn’t explain gravity driven tides that coincide with the movements of the sun and moon. And ignores the heliocentric solar system I can observe with my telescope.  And why a simple dial star atlas of the southern hemisphere accurately predicts the southern hemisphere’s night sky.

Here is an illustration of how the Earth is lit on the bi-polar map:
https://pin.it/4UWd9MzoM

Three quarters of earth's area is lit by two half-suns? What does this map look like 12 hours later?

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 21, 2024, 02:14:38 PM

Here is an illustration of how the Earth is lit on the bi-polar map:
https://pin.it/4UWd9MzoM

Three quarters of earth's area is lit by two half-suns? What does this map look like 12 hours later?

You just didn't read what I wrote.
The text explains that daylight is not exactly sunlight.
Ignore the suns shown in the illustration.

You just didn't read what I wrote.
The text explains that daylight is not exactly sunlight.
Ignore the suns shown in the illustration.

And I explained how that doesn't help you.
They can see the sun.
So deflecting to daylight being something else leaves you still entirely wrong.

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 21, 2024, 02:14:38 PM

Here is an illustration of how the Earth is lit

Which doesn’t explain why I can view Venus and the phases of Venus.  And why gravitational acceleration differs on Earth in relationship to changes in Earth’s density.  And doesn’t explain gravity driven tides that coincide with the movements of the sun and moon. And ignores the heliocentric solar system I can observe with my telescope.  And why a simple dial star atlas of the southern hemisphere accurately predicts the southern hemisphere’s night sky.

The correct model of planetary orbits is the Tychonic model, the planets revolve around the Sun, the Earth is not a planet.
The luminiferous ether is everywhere, the Earth accelerates upwards at ≈ 10 m/s^2, this movement is the cause of gravity. And it also causes the etheric wind of the luminiferous ether to go towards the ground, this generates a small pressure force, some celestial bodies absorb luminiferous ether and this reduces the amount of pressure exerted by the etheric wind, causing the sea level to rise. This also causes gravitational variations.
Isostasy refutes the idea that mass attraction is the main cause of Earth's gravity:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy
Michelson Morley's vertical experiments can detect the etheric wind from the luminiferous ether downwards: https://web.archive.org/web/20190412174422/http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0009v4.pdf
Proof that celestial bodies can absorb luminiferous ether, the Moon is clearly rocky, but the fact that it absorbs luminiferous ether means that light is able to pass through it, making it semi-transparent:
https://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm

The correct map model is the bi-polar model, not the north-centered azimuth.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 22, 2024, 10:53:53 AM

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 21, 2024, 02:14:38 PM

Here is an illustration of how the Earth is lit on the bi-polar map:
https://pin.it/4UWd9MzoM

Three quarters of earth's area is lit by two half-suns? What does this map look like 12 hours later?

You just didn't read what I wrote.
The text explains that daylight is not exactly sunlight.
Ignore the suns shown in the illustration.

What you posted does nothing to help me observe the night sky and is quite useless where the heliocentric model is quite useful for predicting the night sky so I can plan when to set up my telescope.  Or in the past the sun and moon and their relationships to high and low tide when I would swim off a beach while stationed in Guam. 

 the Moon is clearly rocky, but the fact that it absorbs luminiferous ether means that light is able to pass through it, making it semi-transparent:

Really? 


I saw no proof of that during the solar eclipse.








And no proof with my telescope.








Maybe take the time to invest in equipment and present actual observations?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 22, 2024, 10:53:53 AM

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 21, 2024, 02:14:38 PM

Here is an illustration of how the Earth is lit on the bi-polar map:
https://pin.it/4UWd9MzoM

Three quarters of earth's area is lit by two half-suns? What does this map look like 12 hours later?

You just didn't read what I wrote.
The text explains that daylight is not exactly sunlight.
Ignore the suns shown in the illustration.

Oh. So you meant "here is an illustration of how the Earth is lit on the bi-polar map, but ignore parts of it."

Okay.

Three quarters of earth's area is in daylight? What does this map look like 12 hours later?

The correct model of planetary orbits is the Tychonic model, the planets revolve around the Sun, the Earth is not a planet.

No, that is an incorrect model.

The luminiferous ether is everywhere

Yet there is no evidence of it anywhere.

Earth accelerates upwards at ≈ 10 m/s^2, this movement is the cause of gravity.

Except it can't be, as that would tear Earth apart due to the variation.

This also causes gravitational variations.

How?

Isostasy refutes the idea that mass attraction is the main cause of Earth's gravity

No, it further supports it, given the roughly spherical shape of Earth.

Michelson Morley's vertical experiments can detect the etheric wind from the luminiferous ether downwards:

No they can't, which is why you need to appeal to a non-peer reviewed article.

Proof that celestial bodies can absorb luminiferous ether, the Moon is clearly rocky, but the fact that it absorbs luminiferous ether means that light is able to pass through it, making it semi-transparent:

The moon is not transparent.

The correct map model is the bi-polar model, not the north-centered azimuth.

The bipolar map is no more corrected than the north pole centered one.
They both only work as a projection of the ~spherical Earth.

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 22, 2024, 07:31:19 PM

The correct model of planetary orbits is the Tychonic model, the planets revolve around the Sun, the Earth is not a planet.

No, that is an incorrect model.

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 22, 2024, 07:31:19 PM

The luminiferous ether is everywhere

Yet there is no evidence of it anywhere.

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 22, 2024, 07:31:19 PM

Earth accelerates upwards at ≈ 10 m/s^2, this movement is the cause of gravity.

Except it can't be, as that would tear Earth apart due to the variation.

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 22, 2024, 07:31:19 PM

This also causes gravitational variations.

How?

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 22, 2024, 07:31:19 PM

Isostasy refutes the idea that mass attraction is the main cause of Earth's gravity

No, it further supports it, given the roughly spherical shape of Earth.

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 22, 2024, 07:31:19 PM

Michelson Morley's vertical experiments can detect the etheric wind from the luminiferous ether downwards:

No they can't, which is why you need to appeal to a non-peer reviewed article.

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 22, 2024, 07:31:19 PM

Proof that celestial bodies can absorb luminiferous ether, the Moon is clearly rocky, but the fact that it absorbs luminiferous ether means that light is able to pass through it, making it semi-transparent:

The moon is not transparent.

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 22, 2024, 07:31:19 PM

The correct map model is the bi-polar model, not the north-centered azimuth.

The bipolar map is no more corrected than the north pole centered one.
They both only work as a projection of the ~spherical Earth.

Take a look at this image (which is obviously not accurate, it's just illustrative): https://stock.adobe.com/br/images/flat-earth-in-space-ancient-cosmology-model-conspiracy-theory-stylized-vector-illustration/263436808
A flat earth like this, accelerating so fast that it generates friction with the luminiferous ether and shines, is very similar to a comet.
The UA has already reached a speed much higher than the speed limit established by special relativity. The earth is only ≈ 3384 years old, 106.790.918.4000 m/s is approximately the speed the earth has reached so far.
V = AT
V = 10 m/s^2 • 3384
T = 106.790.918.400
V = 10 m/s^2 • 106.790.918.400
V ≈ 106.790.918.4000 m/s
Therefore, many years from now, the earth will reach an extremely high speed and the friction with the luminiferous ether will generate enough heat to heat the earth to the point of destroying it.
This fact was accepted in the globe hypothesis, being adapted to the statement that the Sun would swell and extirpate life on earth.

"No, that is an incorrect model."
It's a lie, it's obviously correct, because the Sun is smaller than the Earth.

"Yet there is no evidence of it anywhere."
Lie, there is a LOT of evidence.
Michelson Morley's vertical experiments can detect the etheric wind from the luminiferous ether downwards:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190412174422/http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0009v4.pdf
Quantum vacuum, the pseudonym for the ether adopted by official science:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/portuguese/geral-48241698.amp
Physicists have detected the ether:
https://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=quintessencia-fisicos-dizem-ter-detectado-quinto-elemento&id=010130201127
Neutrinos traveling at the speed of light debunk the theory of relativity:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3433
Some more refutations of relativity:
http://www.oprincipedoscruzados.com.br/2018/07/a-falsa-teoria-da-relatividade-suas.html?m=1

"Except it can't be, as that would tear Earth apart due to the variation."
That's a lie, the earth is protected by two extremely resistant firmaments.
Discovery of the first firmament:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23572221-antarctic_regions-1960-edition-of-the-encyclopedia-americana-v-2-pp-11-15
A rainbow is simple and empirical proof of the existence of a firmament:
For a natural-like rainbow to be reproduced in an environment isolated from sunlight, three items are necessary:
1) Water.
2) Light.
3) Glass.
The glass disperses the Light that passes through it and the colors are seen in the water droplets.  Without glass, a rainbow does not occur because water alone cannot disperse enough light to generate a rainbow.
In an open environment, the rainbow occurs without the need for glass because it already has the sky, which disperses the light, while the colors are visible in the raindrops.
A rainbow takes the shape of the glass that disperses the light, outdoors, the rainbow is shaped like an arch because it takes the shape of the sky.
Even if a rainbow were possible on the globe, the water droplets would have to magically form an arc in the sky for the rainbow to be that shape, or the arc shape could be a result of the curvature of the globe, but this would require the Earth was the same size as the rainbow, therefore, it is equally impossible.

Here is evidence of a second firmament: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71567.msg1940251#msg1940251
"No, it further supports it, given the roughly spherical shape of Earth."
Isostasy is the absence of mass attraction in mountains, read it before you go inventing any rubbish.

"No they can't, which is why you need to appeal to a non-peer reviewed article."
"The moon is not transparent"
Again, read the articles if you don't want to be just some ignorant person.

"The bipolar map is no more corrected than the north pole centered one.
They both only work as a projection of the ~spherical Earth."
Lie.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19790.msg373098;topicseen#msg373098

His statements are often so stupid that they shouldn't even be answered.
"No, it is the sun.
The same sun that other people observe.
No need to appeal to a magical object separate from the sun."
The evidence points out that it is not the Sun, read the links I put, people have already entered the polar openings and reported seeing Eos, and NASA scientists have proven that auroras are caused by internal sources of ions.

"An 8 minute delay, just delays everything by 8 minutes.
It doesn't mean you can see things simultaneously."
An 8 minute delay allows etheric refraction to leave a mirage of the Sun, the light takes longer to leave than to enter.
Additionally, you need to consider that the dense luminiferous aether layers of parabolic gradients refract light all the way to the other side. Demo with miniature model:


"So the orientation of the terminator, which is what people appear to when they discuss the tilt?
Just the same thing.

I notice you make absolutely no attempt to show they are different."
The orientation of the terminator of a sphere and the Moon is a comparison used by globularists to argue that the Sun is super far away:
https://flatearth.ws/ball-moon-phase https://cref.if.ufrgs.br/?contact-pergunta=evidencias-de-que-o-sol-esta-tudo-mais-distante-do-que-a-lua
Obviously there is no need to place a Sun super far away while we can explain this and many other facts with the curvature of light, without the need to resort to a globe full of ad-hoc.

"Which is quite negligible unless you go to a very massive mass."
"Why is it bending?
Why that particular direction?
Why that particular amount?"
A string extended over a long distance will be curved because the center will be the heaviest part, the same thing happens with light rays, which are caused by the gravity generated by UA

"An idea which fails to work? Because it can't explain simple things like the variation in g across Earth."
 The UA perfectly explains the variations in gravity, the luminiferous aether is everywhere, the Earth accelerates upwards at ≈ 9 or 10 m/s^2, this movement is the cause of gravity.  And it also causes the etheric wind of the luminiferous ether to go towards the ground, this generates a small pressure force, some celestial bodies absorb luminiferous ether and this reduces the amount of pressure exerted by the etheric wind, causing gravitational variations and also the ocean tides.

 the Moon is clearly rocky, but the fact that it absorbs luminiferous ether means that light is able to pass through it, making it semi-transparent:

I asked for proof in the face of contradictory evidence.  Do you have anything more than word salad and babbling.

Care to address anything from my practical experience.  From the heliocentric model accurately predicting the phases of Venus to high and low tide / tide coming in and out for swimming off the beaches of Guam? 

Quote from: AnneFrothingslosh on June 22, 2024, 07:31:19 PM

 the Moon is clearly rocky, but the fact that it absorbs luminiferous ether means that light is able to pass through it, making it semi-transparent:

I asked for proof in the face of contradictory evidence.  Do you have anything more than word salad and babbling.

Care to address anything from my practical experience.  From the heliocentric model accurately predicting the phases of Venus to high and low tide / tide coming in and out for swimming off the beaches of Guam?

Stars and planets can be observed through the Moon:

"On the 15th of March, 1848, when the Moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw its unilluminated disk so beautifully at one degree from the dark edge of the Moon, saw that its occultation by the Moon was inevitable. It had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the Moon. I have seen a similar apparent projection several times. The cause of this phenomenon is involved in an impenetrable mystery."
"Occultation of Jupiter by the Moon, May 24, 1860, by Thomas Gaunt, Esq. 'I send you the following account seen by me at Stoke Newington. The observation was made with an achromatic aperture of 3.3 inches, 50 focus of inches; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emergence with a power of 70. In the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the Moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and only to the extent of the planet's diameter; but what struck me most was the appearance of the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as if the planet was a dark object and slid towards the moon instead of behind it and the appearance continued until the planet was hidden, when it did; Suddenly I completely lost the dark part of the Moon."
"Occultation of Jupiter by the Moon, May 24, 1860, observed by T. W. Burr, Esq., at Highbury. The first member of the planet disappeared at 8h. 44m. 6.7s., the second member disappeared at 8h. 45m. 4 .9s local sidereal time, on the dark limb of the moon the first limb of the planet reappeared at 9h 48s.; until it touched the planet, when it was seen very well defined and black and as it passed the disk of Jupiter in front it seemed to light up so that the outline of the moon was preceded by a brilliant band of light, undoubtedly a contrasting effect." "Occultation of the Pleiades, December 8, 1859, observed at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich; communicated by the Astronomer Royal. Observed by Mr. Dunkin with the alt-azimuth, the disappearance of 27 Tauri was a very singular phenomenon; the star appeared to move- if for a considerable time along the edge of the moon, and disappeared behind a prominence at the first observed time (5h. 34m.); in a few seconds it reappeared and finally disappeared at the second observed time (5h. 35m.);
"Observed by Mr. Criswich, with equatorial north, 27 Tauri was not occulted, although it passed so close to some of the illuminated peaks of the dark member as to be scarcely distinguished from them."
In the "Philosophical Transactions" of 1794 it is stated:-
Three people in Norwich and one in London saw a star on the night of March 7, 1794, in the dark part of the moon, which had not yet reached its first square;  and from the representations given, the star must have appeared very advanced in the disk.  On the same night there was an occultation of Aldebaran, which Dr. Maskelyne considered a singular coincidence, but which would now be recognized as the cause of the phenomenon."

Symbols such as those in Islam illustrate stars seen through the Moon:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_and_crescent

During the day, the blue sky is observed in the dark part of the waxing/waning Moon. If the Moon were not semi-transparent, the light reflected by the earth should illuminate the dark part of the Moon, but this does not happen. https://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/s/1ynEiD3R9d

The correct planetary orbit model is the Tychonic, semi-heliocentric.
The luminiferous ether is everywhere, the Earth accelerates upwards at ≈ 9 or 10 m/s^2, this movement is the cause of gravity.  And it also causes the etheric wind of the luminiferous ether to go towards the ground, this generates a small pressure force, some celestial bodies absorb luminiferous ether and this reduces the amount of pressure exerted by the etheric wind, causing the sea level to rise. This also causes gravitational variations.

Stars and planets can be observed through the Moon:

What’s the time stamp for a planet?

Anyway.

This guy is using extreme zooming.  You don’t need to extreme zoom for stars.  You need long exposure/correct exposure to make stars visible.

HOW TO SEE AND PHOTOGRAPH GEOSYNCHRONOUS SATELLITES



This photo was taken from my yard on September 12th at 10:23 p.m. The Amazonas series are Spanish telecommunications satellites; the Echostars are used by DISH Network.
Bob King

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/how-to-see-and-photograph-geosynchronous-satellites/

The steaks are stars.  No extreme zooming by the size of the trees.

The Milky Way in El Chaltén, Argentina near Laguna Torre. 20mm, f/2.8, 30s, ISO3200.

https://lightmindedtours.com/photographing-a-starry-night-sky/

This?  And the extreme zooming.  You can tell by the way the moon becomes pixelated.



Extreme zooming is what you do when you want to find pixel noise.

Hot, Dead, or Stuck: Defining Pixel Problems

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/what-is-a-hot-pixel-and-how-can-you-remove-one/

You posted a video of a guy extreme zooming and getting confused by pixel noise/ pixel problems.  Sorry, he wasn’t finding stars. If the image was exposed long enough to resolve stars, the moon would be white washed with overexposure.


This is my own image.  Where are any stars.



The moon is too bright so there isn’t any stars in the image because the stars are under developed.  About any photo of the moon where the moon is correctly exposed is not going to be a long enough exposure to render stars visible in the image.

Take a look at this image

Why?
What point does it serve?

It has been explained to you how appealing to friction wont save your claim.

The UA has already reached a speed much higher than the speed limit established by special relativity.

Based on what and relative to what?
Yet again you just provide baseless assertions.

It's a lie, it's obviously correct, because the Sun is smaller than the Earth.

There is no evidence the sun is smaller than Earth.
Given its extreme distance, as required for many things, it must be much larger than Earth.

Lie, there is a LOT of evidence.

No, not a lie.
There is none.

Michelson Morley's vertical experiments can detect the etheric wind from the luminiferous ether downwards:

Again, stop linking to a crappy non-peer reviewed article.

Neutrinos traveling at the speed of light debunk the theory of relativity:

Except they don't.
They travel just below the speed of light.

That's a lie, the earth is protected by two extremely resistant firmaments.

No, it isn't a lie.

If you claim that gravity is caused by Earth accelerating upwards, then that means that the surface of Earth needs to accelerate at the observed rates, which vary over the surface.
This necessarily means Earth would be torn apart.
If it has a magic sheild to protect it and keep it together, then there shouldn't be variations.

A rainbow is simple and empirical proof of the existence of a firmament:

No it isn't.
I can easily make a rainbow from a hose spraying a fine mist of water.
No dome like substance is required.
The water droplets disperse the light.


A rainbow is shaped like it is because of the simple geometry of the setup.
It is based upon an angular separation from the light source to the observer at the water droplets.

And if you really want, you can use an artificial light source.

Here is evidence of a second firmament

Sandy's incoherent garbage is proof of nothing.
It doesn't provide any justification for a firmament.

Isostasy is the absence of mass attraction in mountains, read it before you go inventing any rubbish.

No, isostasy is gravitational equilibrium, generally focusing on the weight of the landmass above the mantle.

It is not your delusional absence of significant attraction to a mountain.

Again, read the articles if you don't want to be just some ignorant person.

Why bother reading articles when I can make my own observations and not see any transparency?

You appear to just want to spam loads and loads of crap to take ages to read without putting in any effort yourself.

Lie.

Not a lie, the truth.
All your bipolar map does is push the problem around.
It still entirely fails as already explained.

The evidence points out that it is not the Sun

What evidence?
There is literally none.
It behaves just like the sun in every way.

No need for any BS about a polar opening, focus on the observations of the midnight sun.

If this is something magically different, why can't these people observe the sun?

An 8 minute delay allows etheric refraction to leave a mirage of the Sun, the light takes longer to leave than to enter.

Then you are appealing to more pure magic.
It isn't merely an 8 minute delay.
It is a magical 8 minute delay which should smear the sun.

Demo with miniature model:

I've already pointed out the issue with that model.
Ignoring it wont save you.
It is also fundamentally different to what you have been claiming.

Pick what you want to argue and stick to it.
Stop just jumping between contradictory ideas.

The orientation of the terminator of a sphere and the Moon is a comparison used by globularists to argue that the Sun is super far away

No, there are already plenty of other things that show that.

Obviously there is no need to place a Sun super far away while we can explain this and many other facts with the curvature of light, without the need to resort to a globe full of ad-hoc.

The level of hyprocisy here is outstounding.
The RE is based upon mountains of evidence clearly showing it is round beyond any sane doubt.
Light magically bending to produce the results expected for that globe model is ad hoc BS to try to save the FE fantasy.
You also need to have light bend in a bunch of different ways to get the results you need for a FE.
You are literally just ad hoc making light bend to get the results to pretend a FE works.
You have no prior basis for that result.

Meanwhile, all it takes for the moon terminator illusion to fall apart is placing a small ball on a mount, taking a look at it so it lines up with the moon and seeing how well they overlap, then changing angle to see that it is pointing at the sun, showing no need for bendy light.

A string extended over a long distance will be curved because the center will be the heaviest part, the same thing happens with light rays, which are caused by the gravity generated by UA

Except that the amount UA would cause it to bend is entirely insignificant.
And that is only in one of the directions you need.

The UA perfectly explains the variations in gravity, the luminiferous aether is everywhere, the Earth accelerates upwards at ≈ 9 or 10 m/s^2, this movement is the cause of gravity.  And it also causes the etheric wind of the luminiferous ether to go towards the ground, this generates a small pressure force, some celestial bodies absorb luminiferous ether and this reduces the amount of pressure exerted by the etheric wind, causing gravitational variations and also the ocean tides.

Again, more ad hoc BS to try to make it work.
Why does this etheric wind push things down?
Why does this produce the patterns you would expect for a RE?
With this etheric wind apparently coming in at the equator?

Stars and planets can be observed through the Moon:

Where it switches from a video, to a series of still images. I wonder why?
Is it because having it as a video will reveal those points are stars or planets?

During the day, the blue sky is observed in the dark part of the waxing/waning Moon. If the Moon were not semi-transparent, the light reflected by the earth should illuminate the dark part of the Moon, but this does not happen.

And this does happen. But it is very faint.

Here is an illustration of how the Earth is lit on the bi-polar map:
https://pin.it/4UWd9MzoM
Facts + facts = discoveries of new facts, everything is interconnected, I formulated a new theory based on other theories linked to the flat earth:
Daylight is not sunlight.

That is tantamount to saying earth is flat.
wait...

So before I read this bit of nonsense, did you finally find the Bishop constant? and the justification for it?