- Joined
- Oct 6, 2021
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 233
What do you guys think about the difrrences in gravity / buoyancy that is meassured around the magnetosphere / plain we inhabit?
Flat Earth
- Thread starter grav
- Start date
Of course he didn’t- I realise all of the footage and comments were fake but I find it interesting what he said - it’s very telling to see how the fakery is woven together to drop clues: an infinite flat plane is how he described the way earth seems from our perception.
Hiding the truth in plane sight . Nasaspeak with forked tongue. Most people ignore the part where truth is told but accept the nonsense instead . It's an occult thing form me - more sad than interesting.
Coincidently watched a discovery science thingy about mishaps in space - Collins was in that doing a space walk to repair a space station. He remarked that the deep black of space was overwhelming , no stars behind him visible in the cameras . Then hurriedly added that the sun blanks them out - next we have a shot of the sunlit space station and astronut with a starry background.
Mainstream gravity is pure fiction. Nothing could hang around up there - satellites , space stations and whatnot if mainstream gravitational theory was fact - only a constant acceleration would keep an object afloat or in orbit. Gravity pulls to the centre of earth , not it's surface and pulls with constant force according to the inverse square law. Falling constantly around the curve of the globe to produce an orbit is impossible - that's why a science fiction writer came up with that rubbish.
There is no magnetosphere - there is a toroidal magnetic field . Allied with change in density/bouyancy I think this could explain what we see as gravity.
Official nasa image.
Yeah, shouldn't such falling object to constantly speed up with the rate of the free-falling acceleration?
Free Falling Object Motion
Yes it should .
Gravity Acceleration by Altitude
This calculator gives the value of g against altitude
Projection from elevation (height, distance, duration) Calculator
This one gives you the freefall time for an object against altitude .
Playing around with these you can see that anything in freefall at 400km altitude will fall to earth in minutes , unless accelerated. #i do recall checking out Sputnik one - that first satellite only flew for a few minutes if I recall correctly .
Newtonian gravity is a con.
Gravity Acceleration by Altitude
This calculator gives the value of g against altitude
Projection from elevation (height, distance, duration) Calculator
This one gives you the freefall time for an object against altitude .
Playing around with these you can see that anything in freefall at 400km altitude will fall to earth in minutes , unless accelerated. #i do recall checking out Sputnik one - that first satellite only flew for a few minutes if I recall correctly .
Newtonian gravity is a con.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2020
- Messages
- 467
- Reaction score
- 1,449
Gravity has at its core a constant 2 way communication and instantaneous energy transmission between each atom and every other atom in existence. The computing power required for each atom to know the effect of all other gravitational pulls from all atoms in existence at all times is ludicrous. Obviously it's stupid but also it ignores that the atom can magically ignore its own gravitational effect on its own electrons.
6079SmithW
Deleted
Found on telegram.
No other info was attached.
Looks like an old map with some mysterious continent
No other info was attached.
Looks like an old map with some mysterious continent
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2020
- Messages
- 467
- Reaction score
- 1,449
Interesting. Australia looks pretty messed up in that map.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2020
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- 143
It looks like a blow up of greenland (Groen Land, as marked) and Frisland (the now vanished island). The Artic circle and meridian line are marked. There is also a thread on here about greenland not being covered in snow and having those two sea channels severing the south of the island.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2020
- Messages
- 467
- Reaction score
- 1,449
A new thread on that topic points towards Frisland sinking. “Survivors of the Great Tsunami” by Alewyn Raubenheimer (1/2)
The Gleason map does not show anything beyond Antarctica but speculative maps do, particularly one from Tibet I'll have to track down. More important than that Tibetan map however are the latest hypotheses formulated by "godgevlamste" on youtube. -Rick
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2020
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 510
The Tibetan map is obviously a fake, as it shows the proportion of continents as they would appear on modern maps.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 1,209
Besides our Stolen History, we have stolen geology.
Tartaria was, in my opinion
. a civilization in a previous reset
. of the computer program
. of the flat earth.
The original computer code was the age of the Titans, the aeons whose gigundous avatars became Mother Earth, Father Sky, assorted Greek gods and their offspring.
Botany was also big back then. Trees were a mile or more in diameter and dozens of miles high.
Before a plasma event that petrified living matter, both flesh and plants, someone cut down the giant trees, leaving stumps with flat tops.
Where did the wood go?
This link shows results for giant petrified tree stumps.
q=wayki+no+trees+flat&t=ipad at DuckDuckGo
This image is from a WaykiWayki blog.
Tartaria was, in my opinion
. a civilization in a previous reset
. of the computer program
. of the flat earth.
The original computer code was the age of the Titans, the aeons whose gigundous avatars became Mother Earth, Father Sky, assorted Greek gods and their offspring.
Botany was also big back then. Trees were a mile or more in diameter and dozens of miles high.
Before a plasma event that petrified living matter, both flesh and plants, someone cut down the giant trees, leaving stumps with flat tops.
Where did the wood go?
This link shows results for giant petrified tree stumps.
q=wayki+no+trees+flat&t=ipad at DuckDuckGo
This image is from a WaykiWayki blog.
Last edited:
space966
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2020
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 31
@AllegedlyDave How did you determined height position of the sun, with triangulation?
This sequence from the most recent Asterix book (Asterix and the Griffin) amused me:
It also mentions the ice wall:
And, following charioteer Coronavirus several books back, there are more topical concerns:
And, following charioteer Coronavirus several books back, there are more topical concerns:
Ice walls and winter is coming, someone is reading my thoughts, the world mind I should guess...
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2021
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 75
Geometry and Angles of Observation - a simple repeatable test that demonstrates conclusively we live on a flat plain. Watch this video here. ( This geometric proof also shows that the sun is local to our atmosphere, not far away as we are told.) Once you understand this test, it will become crystal clear that we are not living on a ball, sphere or oblate spheroid.
Proving the Sun Rotates Over a Flat Earth - Must See Evidence by Corey Kell
I will try to explain below to help you follow the proof in the video. The key to understanding the proof is to remember that the horizontal plane is always the reference when you measure an angle of elevation. This is how Sextants work.
If you put your finger on the highest point on a resting ball (Point A), every other spot on that ball (Point B) is at a lower elevation relative to your initial point. The surface of the ball anywhere else falls below your elevation at Point A as you move away from that high point because of the curvature of that ball. This Geometric Fact means that we can conduct a geometric experiment to validate the claim that we live on a round earth by using the Sun as the object of observation.
We can measure our angles of observation at two points and arrive at triangulation. (You can readily compensate for any terrain issues or conduct the test at sea if needed and still arrive at a repeatable accurate result. ) Remember, the sum of the angles of a triangle can never exceed 180 degrees. Your triangle would have three points, the Sun, Point A and Point B.
Proving the Sun Rotates Over a Flat Earth - Must See Evidence by Corey Kell
If you have trouble understanding the video, read my crude explanation below and then watch the video again.
1. Essentially, the sun moves above us each day and from your observation point below, traces a 180 degree arc in the sky. NASA tells us that this is because the earth is rotating every 24 hours.
2. One quarter of this motion, 45 degrees, is the change in the angle of observation that you would have when the sun has covered a quarter (1/4th) of it's motion during daytime. That is, in three hours, the angle of observation would have changed by 45 degrees on a flat plain. On a flat earth.
2a. When the sun is directly above you, your angle of observation is 90 degrees. You are looking straight up, your reference point is your horizontal adjacent. We will use this as the reference point. Your horizontal adjacent will the reference elevation for this experiment.
2b. Three hours later, the angle of observation would have changed by 45 degrees on a flat plain. On a flat earth. 12 hours divided by 4 is three hours. 180 degrees divided by 4 is 45. We will use a second point some distance away that corresponds to where the sun would be directly overhead the observer (at 90 degrees angle of observation) in 3 hours as the second measurement/experiment point. Let's call this point B.
3. So now, we have two points on the earth, our Reference Point A (see 2a) and our Experiment/Test Point B (see 2b).
3a. We would measure about a 45 degree change in the angle of observation of the Sun if you are on a flat earth at Point B.
4. If you really live on a round earth, your angle of observation must be less than 45 degrees if you are at Point B. This is because the highest point on the round earth-ball to observe the Sun is the original reference point. If you put your finger on the highest point on a resting ball, every other spot is at a lower elevation. The ground falls away because of the curvature of that ball.
Thus, the horizontal adjacent at the Reference Point (Point A) would be higher than your elevation at Point B when you measure the angle of observation. We always use the horizontal at Point A as the reference elevation to complete the triangulation.
5. This means that when you measure the angle of observation of the Sun at Point B, you must ALSO add the degrees representing the change in elevation from the reference horizontal elevation of (Point A). On a flat earth, we would add zero or some negligible amount if there is a local hill/ valley present but there is no other difference in reference horizontal elevation. On a round ball, the change in reference horizontal elevation would be significant and can be easily derived per this table of expected curvature.
Result: The results of this experiment demonstrate conclusively that we live on a flat earth. The measurements of the angles of observation never align with the expected curvature of the ball earth. Because there is no curvature. Instead, the results continually exceed 90 degrees (failed test) when you do the math for an earth with curvature. (Measured Angle of Observation of the Sun + Change in Elevation). If we truly lived on a ball, the angle of observation would shrink extremely rapidly as you move away from Point A and the parts of the world that would be in darkness would be much much greater than what we actually observe!!
We have been deceived by a sleight of hand because they never account for the change in *elevation* between Point A and Point B when discussing this. They assume a flat earth implicitly in their globe calculations by ONLY taking the angle of observation at Point B and not adding the changes in elevation that would occur on a curved ball. Again, this explains why the framework of "a Flat Non-rotating earth" is declared in the attached NASA document.
In fact, the experiment allows us to also show that the Sun is near and local by the process of triangulation-- explaining why we see corpuscular sun rays when the sun breaks through a cloud cover.
A second and humorous video explains the same matter here
Earth Has Finally Been Proven Flat!
Proving the Sun Rotates Over a Flat Earth - Must See Evidence by Corey Kell
I will try to explain below to help you follow the proof in the video. The key to understanding the proof is to remember that the horizontal plane is always the reference when you measure an angle of elevation. This is how Sextants work.
If you put your finger on the highest point on a resting ball (Point A), every other spot on that ball (Point B) is at a lower elevation relative to your initial point. The surface of the ball anywhere else falls below your elevation at Point A as you move away from that high point because of the curvature of that ball. This Geometric Fact means that we can conduct a geometric experiment to validate the claim that we live on a round earth by using the Sun as the object of observation.
We can measure our angles of observation at two points and arrive at triangulation. (You can readily compensate for any terrain issues or conduct the test at sea if needed and still arrive at a repeatable accurate result. ) Remember, the sum of the angles of a triangle can never exceed 180 degrees. Your triangle would have three points, the Sun, Point A and Point B.
Proving the Sun Rotates Over a Flat Earth - Must See Evidence by Corey Kell
If you have trouble understanding the video, read my crude explanation below and then watch the video again.
1. Essentially, the sun moves above us each day and from your observation point below, traces a 180 degree arc in the sky. NASA tells us that this is because the earth is rotating every 24 hours.
2. One quarter of this motion, 45 degrees, is the change in the angle of observation that you would have when the sun has covered a quarter (1/4th) of it's motion during daytime. That is, in three hours, the angle of observation would have changed by 45 degrees on a flat plain. On a flat earth.
2a. When the sun is directly above you, your angle of observation is 90 degrees. You are looking straight up, your reference point is your horizontal adjacent. We will use this as the reference point. Your horizontal adjacent will the reference elevation for this experiment.
2b. Three hours later, the angle of observation would have changed by 45 degrees on a flat plain. On a flat earth. 12 hours divided by 4 is three hours. 180 degrees divided by 4 is 45. We will use a second point some distance away that corresponds to where the sun would be directly overhead the observer (at 90 degrees angle of observation) in 3 hours as the second measurement/experiment point. Let's call this point B.
3. So now, we have two points on the earth, our Reference Point A (see 2a) and our Experiment/Test Point B (see 2b).
3a. We would measure about a 45 degree change in the angle of observation of the Sun if you are on a flat earth at Point B.
4. If you really live on a round earth, your angle of observation must be less than 45 degrees if you are at Point B. This is because the highest point on the round earth-ball to observe the Sun is the original reference point. If you put your finger on the highest point on a resting ball, every other spot is at a lower elevation. The ground falls away because of the curvature of that ball.
Thus, the horizontal adjacent at the Reference Point (Point A) would be higher than your elevation at Point B when you measure the angle of observation. We always use the horizontal at Point A as the reference elevation to complete the triangulation.
5. This means that when you measure the angle of observation of the Sun at Point B, you must ALSO add the degrees representing the change in elevation from the reference horizontal elevation of (Point A). On a flat earth, we would add zero or some negligible amount if there is a local hill/ valley present but there is no other difference in reference horizontal elevation. On a round ball, the change in reference horizontal elevation would be significant and can be easily derived per this table of expected curvature.
Result: The results of this experiment demonstrate conclusively that we live on a flat earth. The measurements of the angles of observation never align with the expected curvature of the ball earth. Because there is no curvature. Instead, the results continually exceed 90 degrees (failed test) when you do the math for an earth with curvature. (Measured Angle of Observation of the Sun + Change in Elevation). If we truly lived on a ball, the angle of observation would shrink extremely rapidly as you move away from Point A and the parts of the world that would be in darkness would be much much greater than what we actually observe!!
We have been deceived by a sleight of hand because they never account for the change in *elevation* between Point A and Point B when discussing this. They assume a flat earth implicitly in their globe calculations by ONLY taking the angle of observation at Point B and not adding the changes in elevation that would occur on a curved ball. Again, this explains why the framework of "a Flat Non-rotating earth" is declared in the attached NASA document.
In fact, the experiment allows us to also show that the Sun is near and local by the process of triangulation-- explaining why we see corpuscular sun rays when the sun breaks through a cloud cover.
A second and humorous video explains the same matter here
Earth Has Finally Been Proven Flat!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2021
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 75
Geometry and Angles of Observation -
1) Some angle of observation experiment results (as described above) are documented here. https://flatearthintel.com/
2) Simple Observation of a Light Source that is close to the clouds, NOT far away. The immutable laws of Triangulation help us here.
We see this often without realizing what it means! See how the light rays fan out at wide varying angles pointing back to a common center?? Corpuscular rays like these prove the NASA narrative is false and the Sun is not millions of miles away.
By applying Triangulation, we realize that the light source is nearby, not far away. The top of this triangle is not 150 million kilometres (93 million miles) away.
Geometry tells us that if the light source were far way at the dizzying distance that NASA claims, the light rays coming through relatively close-together holes in the cloud cover such as these would be near parallel , not fanning out at divergent angles like we see.
We should not and absolutely would not see angles like these from a light source that is 150 million kms away !!!! The distance between the holes is infinitesimal relative to the massive distance to the light source (top of the triangle) for there to be perceptible angles of such magnitude. No. This is proof before our very eyes that the Sun is local and close to the flat earth.
This is repeated very easily at home in the dark: Use a torchlight or candle held at different distances from small holes poked into a cardboard barrier. The light rays poking through the cardboard cloud barrier will spread out in inverse correlation to the distance of the light source to the barrier.
1) Some angle of observation experiment results (as described above) are documented here. https://flatearthintel.com/
2) Simple Observation of a Light Source that is close to the clouds, NOT far away. The immutable laws of Triangulation help us here.
We see this often without realizing what it means! See how the light rays fan out at wide varying angles pointing back to a common center?? Corpuscular rays like these prove the NASA narrative is false and the Sun is not millions of miles away.
By applying Triangulation, we realize that the light source is nearby, not far away. The top of this triangle is not 150 million kilometres (93 million miles) away.
Geometry tells us that if the light source were far way at the dizzying distance that NASA claims, the light rays coming through relatively close-together holes in the cloud cover such as these would be near parallel , not fanning out at divergent angles like we see.
We should not and absolutely would not see angles like these from a light source that is 150 million kms away !!!! The distance between the holes is infinitesimal relative to the massive distance to the light source (top of the triangle) for there to be perceptible angles of such magnitude. No. This is proof before our very eyes that the Sun is local and close to the flat earth.
This is repeated very easily at home in the dark: Use a torchlight or candle held at different distances from small holes poked into a cardboard barrier. The light rays poking through the cardboard cloud barrier will spread out in inverse correlation to the distance of the light source to the barrier.
Last edited:
