Are we rotating at all?

[papaganda]

If wind was related to earth rotation it would be the same everywhere, wouldn’t it? About the sun - and there is another thread here on the impression that the sun used to be more yellow than the current intense white light - it definitely does seem to be getting brighter even here in the UK. And on your comment that no one seems to notice all the weather weirdness, I saw a recent estimate on another site (more wacky woo than this) that over 75% of the inhabitants of this plane are NPCs . Works for me.

Not necessarily…
One of the YT producers I track is Ben Davidson with suspicious observers, though lately it seems his lies are becoming more conspicuous to me
Cash grabs aside his are decent mechanical explanations re the magnetic field
another thing I mentioned recently in a different thread
Widening ley lines all over
Makes the clouds look like corduroys
So the wind would be a localized response to the magnetic field of the earth
Coupled with the general trends like the jet streams and such
‘ they ‘ admit the northern jet stream is widening
But part of why certain areas get hit still harder than others is due to local geologic influences , mountain ranges (Yellowstone for Wyoming) , lakes, etc
Which the impulses the earth would give off from a mountain versus a lake
Impulses ie the sun, FE or not, and the tremendous amount of energy the light breaks down into, that energy creating the conditions for the earth to respond
These affect the wind
So it’s everywhere more and in the places where it was always substantial it’s more than even usual ?
It wouldn’t necessarily be the same everywhere if earth is rotating is what I’m saying
wind being so consistently in certain places
the four winds, for instance
But I’m having trouble imagining the winds on a flat earth
I feel like they have an answer though because
a direction for the energy flow in its model, right?

 

[reverendALC]

Hearkening to the post title, I stumbled upon this (well, a similar one, but I googled this one) physics experiment:


View: https://youtu.be/RdRnB3jz1Yw


They say that we’re all accustomed to the motion, in stasis with the motion like standing still on an airplane and not feeling the 600mph flight. The water in the experiment certainly doesn’t appear “in stasis” with the movement, at least not in a manner which supports the spinning globe.

However, if you read the comments you’ll see that some people cruise right past the centrifugal effect and land on the “flerfers say water can’t curve” argument. The fact that there’s a NASA sticker on the turntable is humorous too.

 

[alltheleaves]

They say that we’re all accustomed to the motion, in stasis with the motion like standing still on an airplane and not feeling the 600mph flight.

The airPLANE analogy perhaps assumes earth is enclosed by a "container" = to the airplane fuselage.

 

[reverendALC]

The airPLANE analogy perhaps assumes earth is enclosed by a "container" = to the airplane fuselage.

Yeah, a firmament of sorts would ‘splain that away, but sharply contradicts the whole “atmosphere slowly thins out into the vacuum of space” rhetoric. I don’t see how an atmosphere can exist next to a vacuum (or “near vacuum” at all, especially with spinning and hurtling and such… but what do I know?

 

[reverendALC]

If earth is spinning and the moon is orbiting the earth and we’re all hurtling through space, wouldn’t the turbulence of the moon tearing around us cause a sort of wake in that thin atmosphere?

I’m no astronomer, nor am I a physicist… but these assertions seem incongruent to me.

 

[reverendALC]

Consider this, that the sun is actually a four dimensional, 365 times wound toroid of sorts, existing indefinitely and infinitely at each point we might observe it in the sky. The sun may not be traveling through the sky, but rather certain parts of it are exposed to our reality throughout the day as it overlaps with and passes through our dimension. Similar to a computer program, the center point of the sun is plotted on our mind’s screen, and no matter the location of that center point, the sun appears with a radius of 100 pixels. Whether directly overhead, half obscured by the horizon, or anywhere in between… a sun with r=100. I don’t necessarily believe any of that, but it could be true. It’s a theory that conforms to our observations, and honestly isn’t that much less wild than the current interstellar suppositions.

In this world (not on this forum per se) we suffer from a lack of collective curiosity it seems. So many minds just accepting the entirety of the narrative, with some minds clashing on what to accept and what not to, and some minds resorted to fantastical explanations.

Whatever the shape or form of our reality, we ought to continue studying and identifying.

 

[Seiya]

Haha, again you misunderstand me.

The submarine example was to illustrate the necessary equilibrium to @AntiSoof , not to combat your point (which I agree with). To elaborate, in that example, the submarine cabin is the vacuum (negative pressure) and the water is the atmosphere. The cabin doesn’t necessarily pull the water in, but provides a path of lesser resistance and the water pushes in.

Also, the “fun facts about gravity” discredit gravity and its application in atmosphere and space

@reverendALC I understood, I just wanted to comment or add that they use the example of a submarine to compare what space would be, and of the countless theories, nothing more is a hoax.
Sorry if it seemed "against" the intention was to add

 

[Just]

Of course can, you can produce it under vacuum with a vacuum chamber equipment, easy to find for sale, for around £120.


- If you have a clean chamber with nothing inside, you put something inside, close it and remove the air. The idea of space is so false that nothing makes sense or has logic.

- If you have an empty container that does not let in light or waves, close it and remove all the air, you have created a vacuum.

- If you have an empty container that lets in light or waves, close it and remove all the air, you have not created a vacuum. You have an airless container

- If you have a container with something inside, close it and remove all the air, you have not produced a vacuum. You have an object in a chamber with no air. This object or whatever it is will behave differently. One is to gain more weight. Even a balloon with helium gas no longer floats, and sinks to the bottom.


Only with this information can you unmask the fraud of 3 "space things"

1. You would never float in space if there was space.
   
   
2. The Earth could only have an atmosphere if it were in a closed container.
   
   
3. If removing the air made the helium balloon fall to the bottom, proving gravity is a hoax. The float suit has nothing to do with a mysterious force pulling you down, but rather density compared to air.

If space were true, the earth would "fall" to the bottom of space, but they say that space is infinite, so it would fall forever.
And we can not use the word infinite outside mathematics. To things. Since you will never know if something is infinite, if you don't reach the end, it doesn't make it infinite, the end could be a little further ahead than the place you were able to reach or see.

About the beginning I mentioned that you are already talking about how things will act within the vacuum. But first the space has to exist. If it doesn't exist, anything that says it's inside it is automatically dismissed/irrelevant.

It would be like me saying what is the correct behavior I should have at my party at the Palace of Versailles. When I barely have anything to pay my bills. haha

And what about the footage of astronauts walking outside their ‘spacecraft’ to carry out repairs or some such nonsense where air bubbles are clearly visible showing it was filmed under water. In fact all trials of such procedures is always said to be carried out underwater to ‘simulate space travel’. Plausible deniability. ‘What are the air bubbles?’ ‘Oh sorry - we showed you the practice footage accidentally.’ They think we’re fools and tbh we mostly are. Though I must pat myself on the back for not believing the moon landing footage when it first came out - especially when the lunar module took off back to earth and the camera panned up to follow it. ‘Er - who’s been left behind on the moon to film that?’ ‘Nobody’. Yeah right.

 

[Seiya]

If the world is a simulation wouldn’t it be just as easy to create a spinning ball with all the ‘science’ necessary to make that a functioning model? So the vacuum and non spinning world with a nonsensical ‘science’ superimposed on it to blind us to the reality of the structure of our plane(t) suggests this world we live in is real and is really not a spinning ball in a vacuum because, as you say, this makes no sense. I’m only adding these thoughts about a ‘simulated reality’ because I’m hearing it a lot recently and I believe it’s being suggested to us to exonerate the liars / the evil-doers / the thieves of our past.

That's really good, perfect combination. Solar System fit like a glove in the simulation.

When people starts with the Simulation story, I can't stand it.

Simulation is the result of consuming joo propaganda: Matrix and Marvel

 

[Tomkat]

Mothers’ or Mother’s Day I ask?
Depends if it’s one or many of them. One needs to know which.
It was yesterday in some parts of the world. Others have it on the second Sunday in May.

I realise that some of the "ancient texts" we have are not quite what they are alleged to be but in order to begin somewhere I pick Plato, OK?


What do I know? Practically nothing: Which is why Socrates was accounted the wisest man in Athens. he was completely convinced that he knew nothing.

Socrates - Wikipedia
I know that I know nothing - Wikipedia

Socrates is known for disavowing knowledge, a claim encapsulated in the saying "I know that I know nothing". This is often attributed to Socrates on the basis of a statement in Plato's Apology, though the same view is repeatedly found elsewhere in Plato's early writings on Socrates.[104]

Why?

This saying is also connected or conflated with the answer to a question Socrates (according to Xenophon) or Chaerephon (according to Plato) is said to have posed to the Pythia, the Oracle of Delphi, in which the oracle stated something to the effect of "Socrates is the wisest person in Athens."[3] Socrates, believing the oracle but also completely convinced that he knew nothing, was said to have concluded that nobody knew anything, and that he was only wiser than others because he was the only person who recognised his own ignorance.

"I know that I know nothing" is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates: "For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing..."

(Plato, Apology 22d, translated by Harold North Fowler, 1966).[1]


Coming beck to here and now, and to me and my particular point.
How do I know what I know? Do I know what I know? What evidence do I have to offer? This is a question for everyone really; I’m only clarifying to get to the basic point, like boiling stock down before making a hearty stew, haha.

What is evidence and what is proof? Do we even know there's any difference? There really really is I assure you.



Evidence forms the basis for building a case or argument, while proof is the culmination of that evidence, establishing a higher level of certainty or truth.

Evidence is necessary to gather support and convince others, while proof is required to establish any conclusive outcome.

Even that is partial but it’s a start, like putting the bits assembled into a large saucepan with water, the great solvent. It’s so good at dissolving because it’s amphoteric.

It’s not universal but it’s the best so I believe, from experience as well as accessing printed wisdom.



Context is the cue for most meaning we CAN ever find in anything. I put that forward for your consideration. Without context we find ourselves in trackless wastes … wandering on or round, who knows which? Who can tell and how except from outside the paradigm? And who’s in that position?

Evidence and proof: Keep coming back to the distinction. Which is moving the sun or the earth? How can I tell? What’s my evidence, where’s my proof? What’s my own experience?

The Foucault Pendulum. That’s the proof- or is it just evidence for a story, no more than that?

The Foucault pendulum or Foucault's pendulum is a simple device named after French physicist Léon Foucault, conceived as an experiment to demonstrate the Earth's rotation. If a long and heavy pendulum suspended from the high roof above a circular area is monitored over an extended period of time, its plane of oscillation appears to change spontaneously as the Earth makes its 24-hourly rotation.

The pendulum was introduced in 1851 and was the first experiment to give simple, direct evidence of the Earth's rotation.


I post this thread here but it's very much part of our alternative history ;maybe an admin person will advise mef urther & move if appropriate.

I was stimulated into this by Feralimal and his recent post regarding the chemical elements, such as oxygen hydrogen et al

Many thanks all

Nick this is such an interesting thread. I just started from the beginning and reread it. First lemme say really great op, thought provoking and light hearted. And it's so funny where this question of are we rotating at all (we don't know) has branched off etc. Then I realized why it's such a great question. Because it's rhetorical: you're talking about knowing, how do we know? The earth rotating is just the example.....right?

Right?
If I'm way off, my bad, but either way great op

 

[AntiSoof]

@AntiSoof this is a question which has long plagued me, regarding the gravity versus buoyancy/density debate! I have created a new thread (pending mod approval) to continue this very worthwhile discussion without derailing the “are we spinning” subject.

Tangentially, I’ll ask this:

Centrifugal forces can be applied to create a gravity-like effect, with the “gravity” pulling outward as opposed to inward. Is the earth’s gravity somewhat diminished due to the centrifugal force of our allegedly constant rotation?

"Centrifugal forces can be applied to create a gravity-like effect, where the "gravity" pulls outward instead of inward. Is the gravity of the earth somewhat diminished by the centrifugal force of our supposed constant rotation?".

That is an integrating question. I myself thought about gravity and also bought a 'humming top'.
I saw that it started spinning upright. Also the lessons of a professor on youtube who demonstrated a fast spinning wheel that kept spinning upright, even though that wheel was hanging by the axle on a rope on one side of the wheel where great.

Those lessons gave me the idea that gravity could be a kinetic force, perhaps generated by fast moving atomic parts such as electrons, protons and neutrons and then represented even smaller as ultra-small particles consisting of pure kinetic energy that describe a kind of dance, each for itself approximately. And that at the speed of light.Hmm, that indicates movement; kinetic energy? What moves then? Perhaps those particles on the ether particles? That will be thinking for the bright minds with imagination and inspiration.
But to get back to your question, I happened to read this week that at the poles g is about the same as at the equator. A little less, yes. But it does seem that the rotation of the earth can of course contribute to g. We should also not forget the electrically generated forces. The air, for example, is very charged and the earth is the opposite. So there must be a continuous current flowing from space around us to the earth? (I know 'electric universe.)

 

[reverendALC]

"Centrifugal forces can be applied to create a gravity-like effect, where the "gravity" pulls outward instead of inward. Is the gravity of the earth somewhat diminished by the centrifugal force of our supposed constant rotation?".

That is an integrating question. I myself thought about gravity and also bought a 'humming top'.
I saw that it started spinning upright. Also the lessons of a professor on youtube who demonstrated a fast spinning wheel that kept spinning upright, even though that wheel was hanging by the axle on a rope on one side of the wheel where great.

Those lessons gave me the idea that gravity could be a kinetic force, perhaps generated by fast moving atomic parts such as electrons, protons and neutrons and then represented even smaller as ultra-small particles consisting of pure kinetic energy that describe a kind of dance, each for itself approximately. And that at the speed of light.Hmm, that indicates movement; kinetic energy? What moves then? Perhaps those particles on the ether particles? That will be thinking for the bright minds with imagination and inspiration.
But to get back to your question, I happened to read this week that at the poles g is about the same as at the equator. A little less, yes. But it does seem that the rotation of the earth can of course contribute to g. We should also not forget the electrically generated forces. The air, for example, is very charged and the earth is the opposite. So there must be a continuous current flowing from space around us to the earth? (I know 'electric universe.)

The gravity simulthread is live

 

[Frostychud]

This Rosicrucian text claims the earth is inverted or concave as some people like to call it.

Dropbox

I have just read through this entire text. Extremely interesting, especially as the Rosicrucians are to my understanding quite an important secret society. This document suggests that Concave Earth is their official cosmology. I'd like to know if that's true. If so, it's a big argument in favor of this model, which I'm familiar with through the work of @wild heretic. The detail which really struck me here is the claim that what we see as the sun is actually a projection on the upper layer of the atmosphere.

This has the ring of truth somehow. Unfortunately, the document is incomplete. Does anyone know where the next section is?

 

[AntiSoof]

I have just read through this entire text. Extremely interesting, especially as the Rosicrucians are to my understanding quite an important secret society. This document suggests that Concave Earth is their official cosmology. I'd like to know if that's true. If so, it's a big argument in favor of this model, which I'm familiar with through the work of @wild heretic. The detail which really struck me here is the claim that what we see as the sun is actually a projection on the upper layer of the atmosphere.
View attachment 34103
This has the ring of truth somehow. Unfortunately, the document is incomplete. Does anyone know where the next section is?

Yes, I know where the lesson is; on the internet:
Arcane Cosmology Lectures 1 12 1920s 1930s PDF | PDF

 

[reverendALC]

I’ve always been interested in the concave earth idea, whether it’s the crater earth or the full-bore we’re-on-the-inside-of-the-sphere model.

Both models have difficulty explaining star visibility by geographic location and sunsets, not unlike the well-known FE model.

 

[milealnapi]

As the Earth doesnt rotate, the starry ski should be doing the rotating. As stars circle earth every 24 hour, they probably cannot be as far away as claimed, nor have huge masses, nor located in a vast 3d space, but rather on a rotating plane.

An airplane starting its flight from Oslo (Norway), has to put against ~180km/h difference of rotational speed of the earth when trying to land in Berlin.

Boeing 747 sports the half of the rotational speed of the earth. When it starts its flight from Helsinki (Finland), it may never reach the airport at the equator, as it will storm away from the plane with the same speed as is the max speed of the airplane - 250 m/s.

 

[reverendALC]

@milealnapi the globe theory maintains that the air is spinning with the earth, at the same speed and direction. Thusly it wouldn’t have any effect on air travel, because the air is stationary (with respect to earth’s surface). Otherwise, wouldn’t we feel constant and extreme wind? If you had an aquarium on an airplane, a fish wouldn’t have to swim at 600mph to reach the back of the aquarium because the water is stationary to the airplane.

Not saying I support that theory, but I don’t believe that’s a valid argument against it.

 

[Seiya]

@milealnapi the globe theory maintains that the air is spinning with the earth, at the same speed and direction. Thusly it wouldn’t have any effect on air travel, because the air is stationary (with respect to earth’s surface). Otherwise, wouldn’t we feel constant and extreme wind? If you had an aquarium on an airplane, a fish wouldn’t have to swim at 600mph to reach the back of the aquarium because the water is stationary to the airplane.

Not saying I support that theory, but I don’t believe that’s a valid argument against it.

Sorry but your example is not valid. The aquarium on the plane is only stationary because the plane is pressurized. And to pressurize you need a container, which in this case is the plane. Does Earth have a container now? Or do they have another excuse?! With a mathematical formula or a model? we know they will

 

[reverendALC]

Sorry but your example is not valid. The aquarium on the plane is only stationary because the plane is pressurized. And to pressurize you need a container, which in this case is the plane. Does Earth have a container now? Or do they have another excuse?! With a mathematical formula or a model? we know they will

My examples are always valid, you just hate them haha. The plane is pressurized and according to globe earth, our atmosphere pressurizes itself, ergo valid (or at least equally invalid).

Do you support the globe earth and planes flying against the rotation argument?

If you are going to debate against globe earth, you must debate against arguments that globe earth theory actually makes.

Otherwise it’s no better than a glober saying “why doesn’t the water fall off the edge”

 

[Seiya]

My examples are always valid, you just hate them haha. The plane is pressurized and according to globe earth, our atmosphere pressurizes itself, ergo valid (or at least equally invalid).

Do you support the globe earth and planes flying against the rotation argument?

If you are going to debate against globe earth, you must debate against arguments that globe earth theory actually makes.

Otherwise it’s no better than a glober saying “why doesn’t the water fall off the edge”

There's only one thing in this world that I hate. And these are not your "not valid" examples lol

No, I do not support support the globe earth and planes flying against the rotation argument.

The thread question "are we rotating at all?" in my view, implying that globe earth is true, is like ignoring the beginning and jumping to the middle of argument.
It's like having a discussion about whether the gifts that Santa delivers are made by him or by a third-party factory. Rotation is an "action" of the heliocentrism model.

We cannot speak in isolation.

We have to be smarter and understand that when we are given information about science, the objective is never for the benefit of the common people. Furthermore, this information is presented using communication techniques which induce acceptance.
Anyone who doesn't know this in 2025 should know (I'm not saying that's your case)

Compartmentalization is the way to put something bad into operation with the least possible rejection.

Just to illustrate how real space is real


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bw9Ch_diWU