Flat Earth

kd-755 said:
You said

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


To which I replied.

To which you replied.


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.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you are playing games here... I hope not, but you purposely snipped my quote to make your point.

You left out:
Absent of extemporaneous variables

What you are missing here is the fact that you have a denser material (the water) which is now acting as an upper barrier, pushing the less dense material (the air) downwards. This will increase the pressure as it is being pushed to smaller area, around a corner, until finally it is released upwards, the first chance it gets, where it collects by rising through the water that was pushing down, but is now moving horizontally in a confined space, and then equalizing with a medium of equivalent density.

Submarines work exactly because of this principle. More air to water, less density, go up. Less air to water, more density, go down.

Again, these things are repeatable, observable, and are true 100% of the time.
 
otl2021 said:
Absent of extemporaneous variables
Click to expand...
Apologies. Fat finger copy paste.

You seem to be avoiding the truth that water in all its forms has to have the same density unless it is in reality three different substances ergo steam/water vapour goes up into the cooler water vapour surrounding it and at the same time liquid water is coming down in the opposite direction.

As I said I have no idea what is pushing this stuff around other than my observations showing me something as in a push is the source of all motion I have ever looked into.
In the case of the trompe and the air lift pump we are seeing the exact same mechanism in play as we see when it rains on a hot pavement. Something is pushing both forms of this liquid in directions opposite to each other.
Same goes for all density layers that appear to exist. Something is pushing them apart yet is able to keep them in an equilibrium.
A simple one is oil and water. Oil appears to float on liquid water and the air (water vapour) appears to float on the oil and yet the air (water vapour) and liquid water are the same substance so to my eyes if no-one else's something else is going on as the oil does not continue upwards to sit on top of the water vapour.

If less dense materials always rise in more dense materials then we should just be breathing in water vapour. Perhaps we are and the other gases said to make up our atmosphere are trapped by the turbulence within the air so they cannot take their rightful place in the density hierarchy somewhere way above our heads.
All gases or liquids as they are produced should rise to take their place save for those which are 'denser' than water vapour which should rise from the surface of the water and land then push the water vapour up beyond our noses but this does not happen.

Methane should rise up through liquid water as soon as it is produced but it sometimes doesn't it often sits in large bubbles within the water seemingly neither being pushed upwards downwards or sideways. Methane that is produced on land rises into the water vapour that surrounds it and can be tapped off and vented or burnt as a fuel so how can a gas with an apparent density that allows it to easily pass through the water vapour not pass through the liquid water with the same ease, I know not.
It is said that large methane bubbles coming to the surface of the ocean can create conditions which can sink ships and if it escapes the ocean it can down planes. The claim in both cases it it alters the density of the liquid or the water vapour but the reality is it replaces the water and the water vapour temporarily.

Carbon dioxide should not be available for plants to use as food if density layering is a thing. It is a lower density than water vapour so should rise up above it and not be available to plants other than when it is passing through the region of the water vapour the plant is growing in.

Trees lift liquid water to their leaves using bubbles of carbon dioxide within their veins. This is an air pump in action. The carbon dioxide should not be able to do this as it is less dense than liquid water yet somehow this push force is able to deliver the less dense to move the more dense to a place where density layering states it should not go.

Whatever this pushing force is it really is miraculous.

Edit to fix typo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kd-755 said:
Apologies. Fat finger copy paste.
Click to expand...
Lol, apology not accepted... you are still ignoring the part you left out.

Absent of extemporaneous variables

Every example you give adds something to the equation. Bio/elec/chem, whatever... that is not part of the discussion. You are searching for something that isn't there.

This isn't even that confusing of a thing, imho.

Find just one thing less dense than its medium that sinks in that medium, unassisted.

Find just one thing more dense than its medium that rises in that medium, unassisted.

Like I said, observable, repeatable, 100% of the time.


And to get back to our beautiful flat earth... I love this one! Visibility of over 1000 miles confirmed from an airplane with infrared filter.


View: https://youtu.be/ujBBLYHBsQY


His gps altitude indicator read 28,500 feet, but let's use their 35,000 for the sake of argument.

--Distance to the horizon = 229.3 Miles
--Drop over 1000 miles = 125.632 miles = 663337.65 feet
--The bulge height between the two points > 31 miles!


​

AntiSoof said:
In Holland the sky rotates clockwise. I do not understand why the sky in the video is rotating anti-clockwise. Anyone?
Click to expand...
Can you take a vid and post it here?

Peace
 
otl2021 said:
Lol, apology not accepted... you are still ignoring the part you left out.

Absent of extemporaneous variables

Every example you give adds something to the equation. Bio/elec/chem, whatever... that is not part of the discussion. You are searching for something that isn't there.

This isn't even that confusing of a thing, imho.

Find just one thing less dense than its medium that sinks in that medium, unassisted.

Find just one thing more dense than its medium that rises in that medium, unassisted.

Like I said, observable, repeatable, 100% of the time.


And to get back to our beautiful flat earth... I love this one! Visibility of over 1000 miles confirmed from an airplane with infrared filter.


View: https://youtu.be/ujBBLYHBsQY


His gps altitude indicator read 28,500 feet, but let's use their 35,000 for the sake of argument.

--Distance to the horizon = 229.3 Miles
--Drop over 1000 miles = 125.632 miles = 663337.65 feet
--The bulge height between the two points > 31 miles!


​


Can you take a vid and post it here?

Peace
Click to expand...

I did make a number of photo's, and I will look for them. Not sure if I still have them.
 
Last edited:
Interesting pdf, I don't claim to understand it but i thought the name was a little off.
 

Attachments

  • propagation of electromagnetic fields over flat earth.pdf
    355.1 KB · Views: 213
otl2021 said:
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.


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..


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.

maxresdefault.jpg


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.
Click to expand...

I was hoping to return here after a day consorting with Covid muggles to find simplified answers to trompes and the flat sky. I still don't see anything dumbed down enough for me.

I'm also not sure what the disagreement is concerning the push-pull "force" of water density. @sandokhan has presented math and jargon to justify how electromagnetism makes water behave, particularly with air pressure. His arguments are wordy, but not persuasive. When equations with more than 2 alphabetic constants are applied, that kind of trips my wires. But I would like to see a clean mathematical formula with things we can measure. like verifiable gas laws explaining how water is drawn up into a pipe without mechanical equipment.

The flat sky seems to becoming more popular in FE circles than the old dome model. Your image suggests that stars on the outer bands of the skywheel move faster than the ones more directly overhead.
While that observation would be true for both models, it seems more likely on a plane surface.

As someone has noted, perspective (location and angle of observation) alter the shapes of the star trails. Videos which I've watched over the years have always focused on the sky dome.


These are important matters for us defenders of geocentrism.
I appreciate all the thought that some posters have put into the science of both topics.
 
About the video of star trails I posted earlier .

The camera points at the pole star - if that was a sky plane then that plane would have to be perpendicular to the camera to produce those circular star trails ,thus the camera would have to be directly beneath the circle of rotation of the plain of stars . Directly under the pole star would be the only place on earth where you could see circular star trails.

I've been trying to find out where the scientific basis for the statement " our eye is sphere so our field of vision is a sphere" - I can't find that. I've seen the little drawings of an eyeball on x,y axes surrounded by a bigger sphere and all math angles and what not.The human eye is not limited by distance.

Off the physics forum Quora thing -3 different explanations.

1. We see a dome cos spacetime is curved.
2. It's an illusion .
3. Our atmosphere is curved so we are looking through a lens in effect.

The point about the camera is that it sees what we see . We might be fooled by any the three bozo explanations but not the camera.

I see no evidence anywhere that the dome is actually a plane.
 
AntiSoof said:
In Holland the sky rotates clockwise. I do not understand why the sky in the video is rotating anti-clockwise. Anyone?
Click to expand...
Do the stars rise in the east and set in the west? The rest is perspective:
J8QWpg.gif
 
Read some book or article how longitude was determined. It was determined with clock. So it is not earth rotation, but time movement.
 
grav said:
FE is not incompatible with CE, Concave Earth.
The Ygdrassil tree of Norse myth, the Cosmic Egg, the Mundane Shell, and other images of other ancient cosmologies are all quite similar.
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.N8WMrm2RjhpPsMraYFiLYQHaEb&pid=Api&H=95&W=160&P=0

We can also see our existence as an electric torus, in which our Infinite Place becomes the accretion disk at the center.
Flat Earth is actually a simplified term to describe the motionless and irregular surface we are familiar with.
What lies below? which knows? The deepest hole ever dug is the Kola Superdeep Borehole, which was only reached 7.5 miles, at which depth the massive density burned up drill bits.
Click to expand...
I have been
grav said:
FE is not incompatible with CE, Concave Earth.
The Ygdrassil tree of Norse myth, the Cosmic Egg, the Mundane Shell, and other images of other ancient cosmologies are all quite similar.
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.N8WMrm2RjhpPsMraYFiLYQHaEb&pid=Api&H=95&W=160&P=0

We can also see our existence as an electric torus, in which our Infinite Place becomes the accretion disk at the center.
Flat Earth is actually a simplified term to describe the motionless and irregular surface we are familiar with.
What lies below? which knows? The deepest hole ever dug is the Kola Superdeep Borehole, which was only reached 7.5 miles, at which depth the massive density burned up drill bits.
Click to expand...
Apropos the electric torus. I have been wondering what the underlying mechanism of the rootating sun is. Why does it keep moving? Why does its trajectory expand and contract? Why is the time for each rotation constant so that it moves slower when it’s at the Tropic of Cancer and quicker when it’s at the Tropic of Capricorn? It occurred to me that something like an electric torus might be the underlying model. Still don’t know the details. But we can imagine something like a funnel, you know, something like those funnels along which surface you send a coin spinning until it reaches the hole at the center. Some electric force makes the sun spiral along the walls of this imaginary funnel and then reverses and pushes its back. It spiral down and up between the two tropic limits. The point is that the angular momentom of this movement is constant, like if you imagine an imaginary axis at an angle to the surface rotating and creating an imaginary funnel wall, and the sun sliding up and doen along this axis as it rotates. Then it would appear moving faster when it’s higher up and slower when it’s lower down. It’s because the angular momentum is the same. It’s the walls of the funnel as a whole that are spinning, not the sun independently by itself. What this doesn’t explain though is why it’s the hottest when you’re on the equator.
I noticed how they no longer show flight paths on planes, which they did even a few yesrs sgo.
 
Last edited:
A PDF worth the read is here SH Archive - New ebook I wrote regarding the history (and space) deception, and what it all means

A quote from within;

Maths is, conveniently, the only science that doesn’t rely on actual evidence.

They pursue parallel universes for which there is no evidence while rejecting parallel theories with plenty. They insist that ten-dimensional worlds exist while ignoring any multi-dimensional arguments that don’t fit their narrative.
There can always be maths for any trick, but it is still a trick regardless.
Click to expand...
 
A suspicion at the intersection of the flat earth and pandemic topics struck me. I would be interested in your feedback. What are the two countries that have the most draconian lockdown laws? Canada and Australia. You can't even cross from province to province - weird! No? Why these two specifically? It struck me that Canada and Australia are the most distorted territories on the flat earth map. Canada is really small. Australia is long and thin. Are there any Australians here? Please weigh in. According to my sources, it has always been very difficult to cross Australia east to west by car. It is divided vertically by so called rabbit fences, ostensibly not to let rabbits through, which you can't cross. There is, conveniently, a big "desert" in the middle. The times zones are super weird. I've never seen anything like it. They cut into each other; they vary by half hour intervals - very irregular and suspicious. There us a testimony I read by tourists who hired a car to cross Australia east to west. They eventually gave up. The GPS signal was inaccurate. They would end up accidentally driving into private land, and rangers would come to escort them out, and so on. There's if I understood correctly no major straight highway crossing Australia east to west that one could conveniently take. As for Canada, it's the other problem, it's too small. I don't know whether people often cross it east to west or whether there's a major east-west highway far north, where people would notice the discrepancy in size. So you know where I am going with this. At the time when people are beginning to wake up about the shape of the earth, it's awfully convenient to have lockdowns that would make it impossible to cross the most compromised territories with the car, which has an odometer, and so you can see how far you've travelled. As for Scandinavian countries and New Zealand, which are also far north and south, these countries are long, thin, and run north to south. They are not as distorted by the east-west distortion.
 
Blue Ice said:
It’s the walls of the funnel as a whole that are spinning, not the sun independently by itself. What this doesn’t explain though is why it’s the hottest when you’re on the equator.
I noticed how they no longer show flight paths on planes, which they did even a few yesrs sgo.
Click to expand...
The Northern Tropic is the hottest place - it's where all the hot dry deserts are . Southern tropic has the cool dry deserts. The equator is warmer than the Southern tropic .
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.

Similar threads

F
The Nature of the Beast (Part 5) The Gnostics, Archons & Devas
Replies
9
Views
16K
Belialith
Belialith
F
The Nature of the Beast (Part 2): Denizens of the Invisible Realm
Replies
10
Views
10K
Belialith
Belialith
Back
Top