Flat Earth

[grav]

Anyways, I have a feeling that these laser tests will be confirmed shortly and the FACT that water does not display convexity on its surface will be obvious for all to see...

Confirmed? by whom? Flatarthers have been conducting long range laser and optical experimnts for years. National Geographic actually cheated a few years ago when they made an episode for tv to prove the curve.

What then in your opinion are the objects in the sky that do manage to break into our sky and strike on earth?

My lazy.
I meant to edit that post and was interrupted and forgot to do my due diligence.

Isn't The Wild Heretic a member here. or a mod?
He is a Concave Earther with a terific website. One of the best articles in it is his essay, "There Is Glass in the Sky."

He contends, or suggests, that yellow quarztlike chunks of rocks found in the Libyan desert may be pieces of the dome. Possibly. I think they could be the result of DEW wars in the "distant" past. Or else natural deposits created by "ancient" plasma discharges -- as proposd by the Electric Universe Thunderbirds thinkers.

A sizeable rock the color of the blue sky has also been found in Africa.

I was careless in my earlier post when I did not address the Chicken Little syndrome. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Because, yes, as Charles Fort documented in his "Book of the Damned," inexplicable objects have rained down on earth over the last century.

The Body Scientific puts us in a bind when they define sky phenomena.
Meteors, meteorites, asteroids, and comets.
While I appreciate FE researchers for proving that the land and watr are level, I fault them for neglecting the sky.

The straight line flashes are, as I surmised previously, the light effects caused by imperfections in the dome. Ewaranon first brought that theory to our attention. I have a hard time calling them meteors or comets, since these terms belong to pseudoscience. We don't have FE vocabulary to properly name these events.

How to distinguish them from natural skyfalls or manmade missiles?
That needs looking into. Amateur astronomers with telescopes might be able to see the difference.

 

[Jd755]

Doesn't the dome idea fly in face of the idea there are lands outside of Antarctica?

Atmospheric gases prove that a dome above the surface prevents air from escaping into a false region called outer space. Air pressure is the mass of oxygen and other gases divided by the volume.

In other words, air must be confined in a container, like a tank of composed air to fill your car's tires.
The idea of a total vacuum called outer space defines logic and laws of physics.

We can't see the dome because of atmospheric interference.

The dome we cannot see or interact with in anyway let alone know anything about it least of all its dimensions due apparently to the atmosphere within the dome interfering with our vision.
It cannot be an atmosphere without the dome as we do not know if there is anything on the other side of the dome. Or possibly we live in a bubble of air that got trapped in the glass which formed by some unknown and it seems unrepeatable process god knows when with no way out to any other possible bubbles within the glass.

Lets face it we know next to sod all about this physical realms limits or if it has any. All we have is endless speculation and the truth the plane we walk on is level as the behaviour of contained water and the way our eyes and brain work reveal.
The only way I can see to figure out what if anything is beyond any physical boundary be it real or imagined is to set off and go find out for myself.
Sad thing is I can invent a 100 good reasons why I don't take that first step towards this goal and it seems most are in the same boat.

 

[otl2021]

What I saw was an object that was very close to earth. It doesn’t mean it came from space, or that it necessarily landed. What is the flat earth cosmological explanation for this phenomenon?

Not sure there is some commonly agreed upon answer to anything, except, yeah, it didn't come from space, lol.

Or a 'FE community." I think today, this FE awakening is happening on an individual basis. Today we have the benefit of seeing many of the 'shills' called out. And I think that many FEers have been activists prior, and are aware of how easy it is for movements of any real size to be co-opted, separated, divided... and finally conquered.

There are a lot of bright folks out there, and hopefully, we wont be fooled again.

Confirmed? by whom? Flatarthers have been conducting long range laser and optical experimnts for years. National Geographic actually cheated a few years ago when they made an episode for tv to prove the curve.

I know about about the NG fiasco, lol. Fun times! And I am talking about confirmation by a separate experiment that removes the very possibility of refraction or any of the other globe-trotted claims being factors..

I posted two of these experiments. You should have a look.

Doesn't the dome idea fly in face of the idea there are lands outside of Antarctica?

No. We don't even know where or if a dome might even begin. Or if there exists a dome at all.

All we know is that we wake up and breathe each day. Because of this fact, we know we exist in a closed system. Air pressure exists. Air pressure cannot exist without a container, as air pressure is determined by the amount of force that the gas produces when it strikes the container.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Mullins force the line experiment - well thought out .

11,000 feet bungee cord would sag under its own weight wouldn't it

 

[Jd755]

air pressure is determined by the amount of force that the gas produces when it strikes the container.

So by that statement of fact if there is no container to push against the air simply keeps on going then?
What is doing the pushing upwards/outwards to the container?
If air pressure is created by a force (currently unknown) pushing air against a container then at some distance from the container itself there must be some sort of pushback or equilibrium surely.
The pressure of liquid water on the bottom of the ocean is much more than the pressure on the air above the liquid water and yet the air bubble released from the bottom of the ocean somehow, by means unknown, is able to overcome the water pressure and rise up above the level surface of the water and in your statement of fact join the air above and continue until it hits a container wall.
Quite how the air can somehow travel in the opposite direction and find itself under a colossal pressure of the liquid water is a mystery to behold.

Using mainstream ideas of how things work simply leads to adopting whichever mainstream explanation or law or rule or whatever fits the belief held in the speculators mind it seems. Rejecting the mainstream and just observing and experiencing thinking for oneself will shed light on things but given most of us on here have decades of mainstream educational indoctrination to lay aside it may take a while.

Edit to add missing word.

 

[Akanah]

Mainstream science and the science of the electric universe are definitely dead for me this year.
Thinking for yourself is always worthwhile.

 

[grav]

Mainstream science and the science of the electric universe are definitely dead for me this year.
Thinking for yourself is always worthwhile.

I wish mainstream science would die, but no ;(
It's like a bad Halloween movie with a monster that just . can't . be . killed .

Why is the Electric Universe dead for you? because the EU think tankers are hypocrites? because they still pretend that earth is a spinny ball in a spinny solar system?

well, hmm, yeah. It's hard to justify that cowardice.
But their ideas about how mountains and odd geology were formed may be worthwhile.

My husband likes old cowboy movies and tv shows like The Lone Ranger. yee haw! Giddy up. Heigh ho, Silver!

Their plots and acting are probably better than your modern entertainment drek, but what I find interesting is the beautiful western scenery. Some of the mountains and hills look like pyramids or the petrified remnants of giant trees (mesas).
Thr EU Thunderbirds propose that plasma downthrusts created those fascinatung rock formations.

Actually, I think they're right.
But plasma is something that we associate with the ionized gases in light bulbs.

Comets are supposed to be space rocks with tails.
Oh, for Pete's sake.
Comet Biela, around 100 years ago, burned up Chicago and much of the US Midwest. It was compared to a whirlwind of fire. Glass and granite melted, many people and wild animals and livestock perished in fhe catastrophe.

Where did it come from? An ejection of solar plasma?
From the dome??? as I have previously thought?
Could it, as well as other destructive comets in "history" books, have been a Directed Energy Weapon?

And who had that advanced technology?
This is when Tartaria and Ancient Alien theories creep into FE theory.
I don't know. I'd like to find a name to describe the whole ball of wax. In a computer program, anything is possible.

 

[otl2021]

Mullins force the line experiment - well thought out .

I agree and am a huge fan. However, a) it is expensive. We are looking at 100s of 1000s of dollars. And b) the machining has to be perfect. I am not saying that it couldn't be machined, because it certainly can. But who or what company, is actually going to do this? Or who can we trust? In other words, if the machining is off just slightly, the entire experiment fails and that money is gone.

11,000 feet bungee cord would sag under its own weight wouldn't it

Yes, the catenary, right? I've been discussing this on physics forums. Here is where we are:

What I don't understand is this.

This is clearly possible:

When I see that, I see a straight line. I don't see the catenary. Is it still there, but so small that it can not be seen or is that a straight line?

And if that is a straight line, then theoretically is it possible to do the same thing over longer distances.

And if it is theoretically possible to do that over a long distance, is there a way to demonstrate this in reality?

And if the bungee cord does not have the tensile strength to mass ratio to achieve this, would anyone know of a material strong enough and light enough to accomplish my goal of creating a straight line over distance?

Or is that simply a mathematical impossibility regardless of the mass to tensile strength ratio?

Or am I looking at this all wrong still?

 

[grav]

Why would it be necessary to use one single line? Why not pick a shallow lake and stick measuring rods in it?

I also found a new video about Antarctica.
From, to my surprise, Info Wars. Alex Jones's site?
I didn't know they were into flat earth.

It's 10 minutes long and discusses the azimuthal-equidistance map and the strange history of Antarctica. Before WW2 the Nazis had established at least one base there, around 1939. Admiral Byrd was involved in an expedition, Operation Fishbowl, and reported his findings in a televised broadcast.

He died shortly after that, soon followed by the the creation of NASA (with Nazi "Paperclip" scientists) and the Antarctic Treaty.
I remind those of you who follow the Tartaria theory that this timeframe has been pointed out as the reset of our age.
1958.



View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YO7-9k0HRiM

 

[FarewellAngelina]

I agree and am a huge fan. However, a) it is expensive. We are looking at 100s of 1000s of dollars. And b) the machining has to be perfect. I am not saying that it couldn't be machined, because it certainly can. But who or what company, is actually going to do this? Or who can we trust? In other words, if the machining is off just slightly, the entire experiment fails and that money is gone.


Yes, the catenary, right? I've been discussing this on physics forums. Here is where we are:

What I don't understand is this.

This is clearly possible:

When I see that, I see a straight line. I don't see the catenary. Is it still there, but so small that it can not be seen or is that a straight line?

And if that is a straight line, then theoretically is it possible to do the same thing over longer distances.

And if it is theoretically possible to do that over a long distance, is there a way to demonstrate this in reality?

And if the bungee cord does not have the tensile strength to mass ratio to achieve this, would anyone know of a material strong enough and light enough to accomplish my goal of creating a straight line over distance?

Or is that simply a mathematical impossibility regardless of the mass to tensile strength ratio?

Or am I looking at this all wrong still?

Yeah - your looking at it wrong . Scientists theorise and can(and do) produce any old mathematical shite to prop up their imaginary scenarios . Mullins is an engineer I believe , and his experiment involves precision engineering aligned with precision optics if I recall correctly , no theory .

I don't think you can run a bungee or a catenary wire over 11000km without a sag.

Surveyors do not account for earth curvature over areas of 100sq mile - there is none .

Geodesy, which is not a science , is the art of mapping level survey onto a globe using mathematical techniques in order to prop up the globe deception/theory , mainly used to produce those nice spherical drinks cabinets . Gonna open mine up now and grab a bedtime tot.

 

[otl2021]

Why would it be necessary to use one single line? Why not pick a shallow lake and stick measuring rods in it?

To what end? What would this tell us?

Yeah - your looking at it wrong . Scientists theorise and can(and do) produce any old mathematical shite to prop up their imaginary scenarios . Mullins is an engineer I believe , and his experiment involves precision engineering aligned with precision optics if I recall correctly , no theory .

No theory, indeed, but there's no optics to consider, just two rails attached to columns.

One rail is designed to be one continuous straight line. This is insured by the initial section being leveled with a spirit level, with the rest attached using brackets that connect the steel sections to each other at a perfect 180 degrees. This is the forced line.

The other rail is simply made using a spirit level across the entire length.

If the world is a plane and gravity is made up, than the two rails will be parallel.

If the world is a sphere as modern astronomy claims, then the top rail will eventually touch the bottom, or forced rail. And as people drive by, they will literally be able to see this for themselves.

The project is estimated to cost in the 100s of 1000s of dollars. And again, the machining and the build must be perfect.

I don't think you can run a bungee or a catenary wire over 11000km without a sag.

Yes, we were out sciencing and confirmed this. We are now looking at other materials, but the idea of removing the catenary entirely over such a length is not possible, regardless of force.

I am now thinking of using a line with the same density as water and doing this just under the water level. This saves tremendous problems, but may create new ones. Let me know what you think.

So by that statement of fact if there is no container to push against the air simply keeps on going then?

No.

What is doing the pushing upwards/outwards to the container?

Particles, matter, substance... call it what you will.

If air pressure is created by a force (currently unknown) pushing air against a container then at some distance from the container itself there must be some sort of pushback or equilibrium surely.

?

The pressure of liquid water on the bottom of the ocean is much more than the pressure on the air above the liquid water and yet the air bubble released from the bottom of the ocean somehow, by means unknown, is able to overcome the water pressure and rise up above the level surface of the water and in your statement of fact join the air above and continue until it hits a container wall.

These things are not unknown. Air is less dense than water, so it will rise. Water, like raindrops, will fall through air because they are more dense than the air.

The air bubble stops rising at the point where it reaches equilibrium with its environment.

Quite how the air can somehow travel in the opposite direction and find itself under a colossal pressure of the liquid water is a mystery to behold.

No air bubbles are ever moving through water in a downwards direction. They only rise. As the story goes, Archimedes figured this all out a couple 1000 years ago. Regardless, this is still true today.

Using mainstream ideas of how things work simply leads to adopting whichever mainstream explanation or law or rule or whatever fits the belief held in the speculators mind it seems. Rejecting the mainstream and just observing and experiencing thinking for oneself will shed light on things but given most of us on here have decades of mainstream educational indoctrination to lay aside it may take a while.

I stay with observable, testable, and repeatable.

Be good, y'all

 

[Jd755]

One rail is designed to be one continuous straight line. This is insured by the initial section being leveled with a spirit level,

What is used to calibrate the spirit level?

kd-755 said:
So by that statement of fact if there is no container to push against the air simply keeps on going then?

No

Well what would happen to the air without the container?

kd-755 said:
What is doing the pushing upwards/outwards to the container?

Particles, matter, substance... call it what you will.

Does that mean that you like me have no idea what is actually doing the pushing?
No evidence of it?

kd-755 said:
If air pressure is created by a force (currently unknown) pushing air against a container then at some distance from the container itself there must be some sort of pushback or equilibrium surely.

?

I was once an apprentice on a marine plumbing test squad. The job was to fill pipelines with either air or water then pressurise them to find any leaks. Two gauges were put on the system. One right at the point were the pump that did the pressurising was located and the other ar the furthest possible point from the former. Once the pressure was built up to two and a half times operating pressure the inlet valve was closed and the pump end gauge was monitored for any pressure drop which would indicate a leak.
If it didn't drop the pipeline was walked and eyeballed as much as could be done, it was on an aircraft carrier so often the pipeline disappeared from view, until we got to the other gauge. There was always a slight maybe two o four psi difference in the two gauges readings.
This could of course mean the gauges were not calibrated equally although being a naval shipyard there was an entire calibration laboratory which was staffed by people who were very good at doing what they did.
I never could figure out why this differential existed but being young it left my mind the instant I left the test squad.
Point is pressure is not created by the container but by the source of the push.
In example above the source of the pressure in the pipeline system is an pump be it an air pump or an air-hydro pump. The pressure across the container (the pipeline) is not the same ergo which suggests to me there is something is going on at the extremity of the container that is not covered in conventional thinking.

kd-755 said:
The pressure of liquid water on the bottom of the ocean is much more than the pressure on the air above the liquid water and yet the air bubble released from the bottom of the ocean somehow, by means unknown, is able to overcome the water pressure and rise up above the level surface of the water and in your statement of fact join the air above and continue until it hits a container wall.

These things are not unknown. Air is less dense than water, so it will rise. Water, like raindrops, will fall through air because they are more dense than the air.

The air bubble stops rising at the point where it reaches equilibrium with its environment.

The density explanation does seem to 'hold water' so to speak however the air is in reality water in vapour form or gaseous form as it is termed by science. It only changes to liquid water when it has something to condense on. Steam from a kettle will form droplets when it hits a cold surface otherwise it just vanishes from sight into the surrounding water vapour.
There is no difference in the density of the water vapour that hits the window or goes into the air yet it is clearly behaves differently.

Air in a trompe and waterfalls is carried downwards within the liquid water in bubble form. In the case of the trompe the air/water mixture then travels horizontally where the air leaves the water and rides along the top of the horizontal pipe (just as the compressed air rode on the top of the compressed air lines in the shipyard when they filled with water, which was fairly frequently as a machine compressing air makes wet air a trompe makes dry air) and is collected in a chamber. The water also rises so far up into the chamber and this height is determined by the placement of the outlet in relation to the inlet. It is the water that provides the pressure to the air.
The air is dry because the water does not create heat in this process whereas all machine compressors are heat producers.

I think the terms density and pressure are used with gay abandon by the scientific world to give credence to things they presume and assume.
An air bubble at the bottom of the ocean has never been checked for its actual pressure. It may well be at atmospheric pressure as it is termed which would lend credence to the rise through 'density' to 'equilibrium' but equally it might be at a greater pressure than the surrounding liquid water. Though how such a bubble at atmospheric pressure was able to exist under the immense pressure of the surrounding liquid water I know not.
An air bubble in water is either being pushed out of the water by something possibly the liquid water or the pressure of the liquid water where it meets the water vapour/air bubble is reduced by something I no not and it is this behaviour that allows the bubble to move upwards through the liquid.
Water at +4 degrees centigrade can transport sodden log within it as Viktor Schauberger discovered through building log flumes which maintained a centripetal spiralling inner core of +4 degrees water within them. As the water warms it moves to the side of the flume and is vented and replaced by incoming stream water at the correct temperature.
I'm sure though have never tested it temperature of the air has as big a part to play in an air bubbles movement through water as anything else. Quite why water vapour is able to exist as a bubble inside liquid water and liquid water is able to exist inside water vapour is a mystery to behold. As mysterious as ice holding liquid and vapour within itself. Only changing the state of the liquid not the vapour!

kd-755 said:
Quite how the air can somehow travel in the opposite direction and find itself under a colossal pressure of the liquid water is a mystery to behold.

No air bubbles are ever moving through water in a downwards direction. They only rise. As the story goes, Archimedes figured this all out a couple 1000 years ago. Regardless, this is still true today.

See the above and research trompes.

Edit to add missing words.

 

[otl2021]

What is used to calibrate the spirit level?



Well what would happen to the air without the container?



Does that mean that you like me have no idea what is actually doing the pushing?
No evidence of it?





I was once an apprentice on a marine plumbing test squad. The job was to fill pipelines with either air or water then pressurise them to find any leaks. Two gauges were put on the system. One right at the point were the pump that did the pressurising was located and the other ar the furthest possible point from the former. Once the pressure was built up to two and a half times operating pressure the inlet valve was closed and the pump end gauge was monitored for any pressure drop which would indicate a leak.
If it didn't drop the pipeline was walked and eyeballed as much as could be done, it was on an aircraft carrier so often the pipeline disappeared from view, until we got to the other gauge. There was always a slight maybe two o four psi difference in the two gauges readings.
This could of course mean the gauges were not calibrated equally although being a naval shipyard there was an entire calibration laboratory which was staffed by people who were very good at doing what they did.
I never could figure out why this differential existed but being young it left my mind the instant I left the test squad.
Point is pressure is not created by the container but by the source of the push.
In example above the source of the pressure in the pipeline system is an pump be it an air pump or an air-hydro pump. The pressure across the container (the pipeline) is not the same ergo which suggests to me there is something is going on at the extremity of the container that is not covered in conventional thinking.



The density explanation does seem to 'hold water' so to speak however the air is in reality water in vapour form or gaseous form as it is termed by science. It only changes to liquid water when it has something to condense on. Steam from a kettle will form droplets when it hits a cold surface otherwise it just vanishes from sight into the surrounding water vapour.
There is no difference in the density of the water vapour that hits the window or goes into the air yet it is clearly behaves differently.

Air in a trompe and waterfalls is carried downwards within the liquid water in bubble form. In the case of the trompe the air/water mixture then travels horizontally where the air leaves the water and rides along the top of the horizontal pipe (just as the compressed air rode on the top of the compressed air lines in the shipyard when they filled with water, which was fairly frequently as a machine compressing air makes wet air a trompe makes dry air) and is collected in a chamber. The water also rises so far up into the chamber and this height is determined by the placement of the outlet in relation to the inlet. It is the water that provides the pressure to the air.
The air is dry because the water does not create heat in this process whereas all machine compressors are heat producers.

I think the terms density and pressure are used with gay abandon by the scientific world to give credence to things they presume and assume.
An air bubble at the bottom of the ocean has never been checked for its actual pressure. It may well be at atmospheric pressure as it is termed which would lend credence to the rise through 'density' to 'equilibrium' but equally it might be at a greater pressure than the surrounding liquid water. Though how such a bubble at atmospheric pressure was able to exist under the immense pressure of the surrounding liquid water I know not.
An air bubble in water is either being pushed out of the water by something possibly the liquid water or the pressure of the liquid water where it meets the water vapour/air bubble is reduced by something I no not and it is this behaviour that allows the bubble to move upwards through the liquid.
Water at +4 degrees centigrade can transport sodden log within it as Viktor Schauberger discovered through building log flumes which maintained a centripetal spiralling inner core of +4 degrees water within them. As the water warms it moves to the side of the flume and is vented and replaced by incoming stream water at the correct temperature.
I'm sure though have never tested it temperature of the air has as big a part to play in an air bubbles movement through water as anything else. Quite why water vapour is able to exist as a bubble inside liquid water and liquid water is able to exist inside water vapour is a mystery to behold. As mysterious as ice holding liquid and vapour within itself. Only changing the state of the liquid not the vapour!



See the above and research trompes.

Edit to add missing words.

Absent of extemporaneous variables, anything less dense than the medium it resides in will rise until it reaches something of equal or greater density than itself, and then it will stop.

Absent of extemporaneous variables, anything more dense than the medium it resides in will sink until it reaches something of equal or greater density than itself, and then it will stop.

This is what we observe 100% of the time. And it really is that simple.

Think of the examples you provided and think on that. The conclusion does not change.

 

[Jd755]

Absent of extemporaneous variables, anything less dense than the medium it resides in will rise until it reaches something of equal or greater density than itself, and then it will stop.

Absent of extemporaneous variables, anything more dense than the medium it resides in will sink until it reaches something of equal or greater density than itself, and then it will stop.

This is what we observe 100% of the time. And it really is that simple.

Research trompes. I might have mentioned that already and I note you either missed or ignored the "what is used to calibrate a spirit level".
The answer is the level that is the property of contained water as viewed using our eyes.
Acceptance of this demonstrable, repeatable truth is all that is required to realise this place is at least a level plane and every human endeavour is built to this truth.
The dimensions and shape of this level plane or any limits it may have cannot and never have been defined and maybe just maybe that is because their definition is of no use to us in our lived life. We do not seem to have the sensory equipment to figure it out thus we engage in endless speculations and polarising arguments. Seems a bit daft quite honestly.

 

[grav]

Flat Earth is easy to prove.
Besides direct observation of long range targets, we have laws of physics of air, water, centrifugal force, others.
This video uses the sextant as another proof.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LPnmAiUuiSI



~14 minutes
The video demonstrates how stars can only be sighted from a flat horizon.
If the globe curved 8 inches per mile squared, you could not get a level x-axis to get a right angle to triangulate.

Furthermore, the video shows that the stars are also aligned in a celestial plane.
NOT a dome. Our eyesight will naturally perceive the sky as a dome.

Aha!
I guess 'firmament' is the best term then. or sky plane? Not a hemispheric round dome.
It does not curve down to Antarctica.

Let's now see what may be the best overview.
We have the Infinite Plane as our earth, above which is another plane which is glasslike.
We have, in other words, layers of planes. A stack of pancakes, through which a magnetic center (North Pole) energizes the sky plane.
The appearance is similar to a turntable on a record player.
The bottom of the equipment does not move, just the turntable with a vinyl record on it.
Interesting.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Like the video about the sextant but I'm not sure about that statement about the firmament being a flat plane - would like to have seen the maths behind that claim .

The angular velocities of the stars would be constant on a rotating dome but would have to vary if it was a rotating plain that gives the impression of a dome to our vision. The implication being that the star true velocity would slow down as they approach zenith from the east and speed up as they pass and recede to the west . Hope that makes sense.

I could be wrong but that's how it seems to me , why I'd a liked a look at the sums.

 

[grav]

On top of Flat Earth and Tartaria -- which sounds like a cool country song -- other new ct's have poppd up lately. Including red mercury as a component of free aether energy. And now we have the flat sky and trompes, which sounds like another Tartarian energy device/water feature.

First, I understand how water behaves but not why.
The flat sky? I was hoping someone would explain how stars would behave on a rotating plane.
The closest my little brain can come to visualizing the sky wheel is to think of it as an infinite ceiling fan. The ones at the furthest ends would move faster. Is that what we see?
This seems like it should be easy to nail down the math.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Yep - a flat sky is hard to visualize which is where the maths would help.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp6UkqIwVfk


Don't think we would see circular star trails if the sky was a plane. Wouldn't the trails be closer together between Polaris and the horizon?

 

[otl2021]

Research trompes. I might have mentioned that already and I note you either missed or ignored the "what is used to calibrate a spirit level".

You did, I checked it out and if you can explain what I missed, I'm all ears. They seem to work EXACTLY as would be predicted. And turn it upside down. Turn the screw if necessary.

Like the video about the sextant...

The same measurements have been made with sextants for centuries. The problem is that we really don't know what or where the sun is, how light works, etc..

The closest my little brain can come to visualizing the sky wheel is to think of it as an infinite ceiling fan. The ones at the furthest ends would move faster. Is that what we see?

Yes. Choose a star except for Polaris and point your camera at it. Do not move your camera and look again after 23 hours and 56 minutes. The same star will be in the same place. This how a sidereal day is defined.

The fact that our solar days are 24 hours tells us that we do not move and that the stars, both fixed and wandering, as the sun and the moon, are moving above us... just as it appears.

 

[Jd755]

You did, I checked it out and if you can explain what I missed, I'm all ears. They seem to work EXACTLY as would be predicted. And turn it upside down. Turn the screw if necessary.

You said

anything less dense than the medium it resides in will rise until it reaches something of equal or greater density than itself, and then it will stop.

Air which is less dense that water does not rise up against a falling column of water despite the different densities of the two.
Air lift pumps transport water in the opposite direction.
A simple air pump from a koi pond or large aquarium can easily lift contained water upwards for 12 feet or so using the bubbles it creates. The finer the bubble the greater the volume that can be lifted.
The water despite being more dense than the air rises. The exact opposite to what goes on in a trompe.

These things are repeatable, observable and go against your claim.

How did we get to this. Oh yes

Air pressure cannot exist without a container, as air pressure is determined by the amount of force that the gas produces when it strikes the container.

To which I replied.

The pressure of liquid water on the bottom of the ocean is much more than the pressure on the air above the liquid water and yet the air bubble released from the bottom of the ocean somehow, by means unknown, is able to overcome the water pressure and rise up above the level surface of the water and in your statement of fact join the air above and continue until it hits a container wall.
Quite how the air can somehow travel in the opposite direction and find itself under a colossal pressure of the liquid water is a mystery to behold.

To which you replied.

These things are not unknown. Air is less dense than water, so it will rise. Water, like raindrops, will fall through air because they are more dense than the air.

Just to keep in mind what this is all about.

So I've provided examples of how it is the push force that is doing the pushing that provides pressure not a container and shown things less dense than others can and do move in the opposite direction to what . Water density in steam and liquid is equal as it is the exact same substance unless of course they are in reality different substances despite appearances and behaviour.
Whatever is pushing the water vapour upwards and the liquid water downwards and visa versa at the same instant it isn't known.

Point is until there is a push force brought into play nothing moves.

Our bodies are living proof that air does not always rise through water and water does not always fall through air. They move through each other as they are being pushed by something we have no comprehension of and are not looking for. All we have as I mentioned earlier is endless speculation within the confines of accepted published stated ad nauseum scientific 'norms'.

This dome idea seems to be based in lights we see over our heads with our visual apparatus.
When we look straight ahead in a long straight corridor the walls floor and ceiling all seem to come to a vanishing point right int the middle of our vision. We know this isn't actually true as we have just walked down this corridor and it is perfectly level.
If we lie on the floor and do the same looking ahead and we have a friend walk away from our position they will appear to disappear feet first. We again establish this is not actually happening as we can simply stand up and their feet come back into view.

Well fine we have all heard it all before. However when we stand or sit and look straight out to the horizon on a clear day we see the sky appear to meet the ocean in the exact same manner as the ceiling and floor of the corridor meet at the vanishing point but as the eyes are only constrained by their physical limit not the artificial limit of the corridor walls we do not see the 'sides' of our vision converging on the same vanishing point thus we are able to see a level horizon quite clearly and with complete accuracy whereas in the confines of the corridor we cannot.

If we then raise our eyes to look at the sky with no horizon to guide us we have now lost three points of the compass so too speak. The walls of the corridor are missing and now the floor (ocean) is missing so based on just the ceiling the brain delivers an image of a curving sky as this is all the eyes and it have to go on.
I have been inside some large as in very high buildings in my time and the exact same thing happens when I raise my head to look at the roof.

For this reason I feel whatever the sky is and all bets are on as far as I am concerned it is not a dome. The dome shape lives only within the limitations of my eyes and brain and I feel sure they have been further limited by the constant 'education' they have and are still being pummelled with over many decades.

Edit to add missing word and add;
This is the image our brains build from our binocular eyes input. It is also the image each eye delivers its just the brain that filters out our noses and delivers a single image we can use.

The eyes and brain do this for good reason. We are visual level dwellers and we need to know where level is as we orient ourselves to level.